I competed in Lincoln-Douglas for three years in high school, and Public Forum for one. I've been coaching and judging LD and PF since then.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

What I Like

I've gotten a few notes from debaters that my paradigm is mostly about what I don't want to see, rather than what I do. In an attempt to remedy that, here is what I enjoy in a debate round.

Evidence Debate - I love 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, 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.

Meaningful Framework Debate - I love when debaters pick and choose their battles on framework and clearly impact the results of the framework debate to how I should evaluate impacts in the round. You will not lose my ballot solely for conceding your opponent's framework. Not all rounds need to have a framework debate, even with different values/value criteria, if those frameworks evaluate impacts in roughly the same way or if both debaters have the same impacts in the round (eg, people dying). Debaters who recognize that and focus on the areas of framework that will actually change how I judge arguments, then follow up with an explanation of what I should look for in evaluating the round based on that change will have a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Internal Consistency - I love when debaters commit to their positions. Many arguments, especially the more unusual philosophical arguments require commitment to a whole host of concomitant beliefs and positions. Embrace that. If someone points out that utilitarianism requires defending the interests of the majority over the minority, be willing to defend that position. If someone points out that Kantianism doesn't permit you to lie to a murderer, don't backtrack - explain it. Don't be afraid to say that extinction does not outweigh everything else. Conversely, if you argue that prediction of the future is impossible in order to answer consequentialism and then cite scientific authors to support your claims, I will be much less likely to believe your position. A debater who is committed and consistent in their ethical position will have a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Argument by Analogy - I love when debaters use analogies to explain or clarify their own positions, or to expose inconsistencies, absurd statements or flaws in their opponents arguments. I think analogies are underutilized as a method of analytical argumentation and debaters willing to use analogies to explain or undermine arguments have a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Comparative Weighing - I love when debaters specifically compare impacts when weighing in the round. Rarely does a debater win every single argument in the round and weighing significantly assists me in making a decision when there are multiple impacts for both sides. While I like weighing arguments in the vein of "This argument outweighs all others in the round" more than no weighing at all, a more specific and nuanced analysis along the lines of "this argument outweighs that argument for these reasons" (especially when it explains the weighing in the specific context of the framework) will give a debater a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Disclosure

I don't want to be on the email chain/speech drop/whatever. Debate is a speaking activity, not an essay writing contest. I will judge what you say, not what's written in your case. The only exception is if there is an in-round dispute over what was actually said in a case/card in which case I will ask to see evidence after the round.

Speed

I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Flex Prep

No. There is designated CX time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep, but not clarification.

LARP - Please don't. Discussion of policy implications is necessary for some topics, but if your case is 15 seconds of "util is truetil" and 5:45 of a hyperspecific plan with a chain of 5 vague links ending in two different extinction impacts, I'm not going to be a fan. Realistically speaking, your links are speculative, your impacts won't happen, and despite debaters telling me that extinction is inevitable for 15+ years, it still hasn't happened. Please debate the topic rather than making up your own (unless you warrant why you can do that, in which case, see pre-fiat kritiks). If there is no action in the resolution, you can't run a plan. If there is no action, don't a-spec. If you want to debate policy, do policy debate. As with other arguments, I will evaluate a LARP round but will have a low-threshold to vote on evidentiary arguments, link/brink severance, and framework exclusion.

Evidence Ethics

I will intervene on evidence ethics if I determine that a card is cut in such a way as to contradict or blatantly misrepresent what an author says, even if no argument is made about this in the round. I have no patience for debaters who lie about evidence. Good evidence is not hard to find, there's no need to make it up and doing so simply makes debate worse for everyone.

Arguments

Role of the Ballot: A role of the ballot argument will only influence how I vote on pre-fiat, not post-fiat argumentation. It is not, therefore, a replacement for a framework, unless your entire case is pre-fiat, in which case see "pre-fiat kritiks". A role of the ballot must have a warrant. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression" is a statement not an argument. You will need to explain why that is the role of the ballot and why it is preferable to "better debater". Please make the warrant specific to debate. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression because oppression is bad" doesn't tell me why it is specifically the role of this ballot to fight oppression. I have a low threshold for voting against roles of the ballot with no warrants. I will default to a "better debater" role of the ballot.

Theory: Please reserve theory for genuinely abusive arguments or positions which leave one side no ground. I am willing to vote on RVIs if they are made, but I will not vote on theory unless it is specifically impacted to "Vote against my opponent for this violation". I will always use a reasonability standard. Running theory is asking me as the judge in intervene in the round, and I will only do so if I deem it appropriate.

Pre-fiat Kritiks: I am very slow to pull the trigger on most pre-fiat Ks. Ensure you have a role of the ballot which warrants why my vote will have any impact on the world or in debate. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the affirmative", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts. That said, I will vote on pre-fiat Ks - a good metric for my preference is whether your link is specific to the aff's performance in this round or if it could link to any affirmative case on the topic (or any topic). If you're calling out specific parts of the affirmative performance, that's fine.

Post-fiat Kritiks: Run anything you want. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the resolution", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Topicality: Totally fine to run. I have a slight bias towards genericist positions over specificist ones, eg "a means any" rather than "a means one".

Politics Disadvantages: Please don't. If you absolutely must, you need to prove A: The resolution will occur now. B: The affirmative must defend a specific implementation of the topic. C:The affirmative must defend a specific actor for the topic. Without those three interps, I will not vote on a politics DA because it doesn't link to the aff.

Narratives: Fine, as long as you preface with a framework which explains why and how narratives impact the round and tell me how to evaluate it.

Conditionality: I'm permissive but skeptical of conditional argumentation. A conditional argument cannot be kicked if there are turns on it, and I will not vote on contradictory arguments, even if they are conditional. So don't run a cap K and an econ disad. You can't kick out of discourse impacts because performance cannot be erased.

Word PICs: I don't like word PICs. I'll vote on them if they aren't effectively responded to, but I don't like them. I believe that they drastically decrease clash and cut affirmative ground by taking away unique affirmative offense.

Presumption - I do not presume neg. I'm willing to vote on presumption if the aff or neg gives me arguments for why aff or neg should be presumed, but neither side has presumption inherently. Both aff and neg need offense - in the absence of offense, I revert to risk of offense.

Pessimistic Ks - Generally not a fan. I find it difficult to understand why they should motivate me to vote for one side over another, even if the argument is true and the alts are often unclear. I will vote on them but run at your own risk.

Ideal Theory - If you want to run an argument about "ideal theory" (eg Curry 14) please understand what ideal theory is in the context of philosophy. It has nothing to do with theory in debate terms, nor is it just a philosophy which is idealistic. If you do not specify I will assume that you mean that ideal theory is full-compliance theory.

Disclosure - I will not vote on disclosure arguments. I don't believe that disclosure as a norm is beneficial to debate and I see it used to exclude non-circuit debaters far more often than I see debaters who are genuinely unable to engage because they could not predict their opponent's arguments.

Framework - Please have an actual warrant for your framework. If your case reads "My standard is util, contention 1" I will evaluate it, but have a very low threshold to vote against it, like any claim without a warrant. I will not evaluate pre-fiat framework warrants; eg, "Util is preferable because it gives equal ground to both sides". Read the philosophy and make an actual argument. See the section on theory - there are no theory-based framework warrants I consider reasonable.

Speaker Points

Since I've gotten some questions about this..

I judge on a 5 point scale, from 25-30.

25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.

27.5 is average. Speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.

28.5 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices well.

30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.

Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally unresponded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.

While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.

Please please please cut cards with complete, grammatically correct sentences. If I have to try to assemble a bunch of disconnected sentence fragments into a coherent idea, your speaker points will not be good.

Judging style

If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be framework and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.

Public Forum Paradigm

Frameworks

I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.

Topicality

I will evaluate topicality arguments, though only with the impact "ignore the argument", never "drop the team".

Theory

Yes, I understand theory. No, I don't want to hear theory in a PF round. No, I will not vote on a theory argument.

Counterplans

No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.

Kritiks

No. Kritiks only function under a truth-testing interpretation of the con burden, I only use comparative worlds in Public Forum.

Burden Interpretations

The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof. Because of limited time and largely non-technical nature of Public Forum, I consider myself more empowered to intervene against arguments I perceive as unfair or contrary to the rules or spirit of Public Forum debate than I might be while judging LD or Policy.

"Debate well. Don't go fast. Don't make frivolous or untrue arguments. You have a prescribed debate topic for a reason, so debate the topic."

That is my "grumpy old man" paradigm.

In reality, I am open to considering lots of arguments from a wide variety of philosophical and practical perspectives. My biggest issue is that I am not great with speed. I don't love it, and even if I did, I don't handle it well in a debate round. I am willing to listen to pretty much any argument a debater wants to make, but I won't evaluate the argument particularly well if it's fast. Also, the more critical the argument and the more dense the literature, the slower you will need to go for me to follow you.

I do have a few pet peeves.

1) No Tricks. Tricks are for kids - I'll absolutely intervene and toss out an "I win, you lose" extension of a random sentence from the framework or an underview. Don't make it a voter or it will likely be you that loses the ballot. Debate the round, don't just try to escape with the W.

2) No EXTENSIONS THROUGH INK - if you are going to extend something, you better have answered the arguments that sit right next to them on the flow BEFORE you extend them. You have to be responsive the attacks before you can claim victory on an argument.

3) Don't shoehorn EXTINCTION impacts into topics that are clearly NOT going to link to extinction. For example, there was a topic on standardized testing a few years back. Policy style impacts of cases and disads should have been about the effectiveness on standardized testing in terms of educational outcomes, college outcomes, and overall productive individuals and societies. Instead, debaters went for the cheap impact and tried to claim that keeping standardized tests will cause nuclear war and extinction. The syllogism had about 7-8 moving parts and at least three skipped steps. It was a bad argument that sometimes won because the opponent wasn't good enough to challenge the link chain or sometimes lost because smarter debaters beat it back pretty soundly. Either way, the debate was poor, the argument selection was poor, and I was not inclined to give those debaters good speaks even if they won.

4) Only read THEORY because there is an honest-to-God violation of a pretty established norm in debate, not because it's your "A-strat" and you just like theory. I like Fruit Loops, but I don't eat them at every meal. Use theory when appropriate and be prepared to go all-in on it if you do. If the norm you are claiming is so important and the violation is so egregious, then you should be willing to be the farm on your theory argument to keep your opponent from winning the debate.

I want to see good debate. I think the four things listed above tend to make debate bad and boilerplate. If you disagree, you are welcome to strike me.

I'm definitely a policy maker at heart, but if you don't give me great impact calc. I will resort to stock issues.

I am not the biggest fan of counter plans but I recognize that some resolutions lend themselves to them and they are justified and in those cases. I actually enjoy judging them in these situations. Don't run one if you don't know how to do it well though...that will just frustrate me.

I like specific DA's but again, I'll vote on a generic one if they aren't argued well.

I think T is a priori and will vote on it first--even if it's crappy. Answer it.

K's aren't my favorite either--mostly because they aren't run well. However, if you know how to run it and the opposing team can keep up, making it a genuinely good debate, go for it. I'm all about listening to good arguments. Just don't run them if it's a tactic to trip up the other team. That won't fly and it will only be a waste of your time and mine.

Speed doesn't bother me. I can keep up. But spreading as a tactic to avoid clash, and genuine persuasive debate, won't get you far with me.

So, basically, give me clash. Give me a solidly good debate where you are all trying to communicate well. That's what I want to see. I was a 3 year high school debater, and a 1 year college debater. I've been a coach for 16 years. (I took a break to raise my daughter). I know what I'm doing. If I give you a verbal critique at the end of the round, listen. I don't give them often and when I do it's because something is in earnest need of being addressed.

I don't put up with rudeness. Period. I will give you the loss on a 7 if you are awful to an opponent or your partner.

That's it. Good luck!

General Paradigms:

-My greatest emphasis in a debate round is impact (what are we debating, if not the topic's impact on people/society as a whole?)

-I place great weight on logical progression of ideas, and the closer your links line up, the better off you will be

-Be cautious when using jargon since I only have limited debate experience

-Speak slowly and clearly. It does not matter how good your argument is if I can't understand it. DO NOT SPREAD. Whatever speed you believe is not spreading, slow down an additional 50%.

-As someone with extensive speech experience through choir, theatre, and voice acting, I am always listening for speaking quality as well as arguments, and a good presentation can take you a long way.

Event Specific Paradigms:

-IE Events: always make sure that any modulation in your performance is motivated. Emphasis, speed, and volume are all well and good but they do nothing if their placement doesn't make any sense

• PF/LD: always be sure to keep track of your arguments. If you make a claim about your opponent's argument that is not true, it illustrates that you are simply reading off a pre-prepared script without actually properly engaging in the debate.

I've been judging and coaching various forms of speech and debate events on local, state and national levels since 2013. Head coach of St. John's School since 2020.

Don't assume I know anything, explain as if you were talking to someone non-specialized in whatever topic you're speaking on. That isn't to say that you should treat me as a lay person but rather you should not expect me to know the intricate literature on complicated topics that you have been doing massive research on.

Ask before round any further questions you might have. I prioritize fairness and transparency as much as possible.

If you're curious as to what kind of judge I am: the PF Discord says that I am tech, flay, fake tech, a worlds coach, and a hack. I'm not purposefully sandbagging my paradigm but I will say that I am human and I won't get it right every time.

If you're curious as to whether or not I'm a good judge: the people I voted for would say yes, and the people I voted against would say I'm a goober behind my back.

Predominately, I just try my best with the information given to me and try to keep any personal bias or prior information out of the round and I like to have things implicated within the speeches.

I will often default to the tried and true: I will vote for the least mitigated link into the biggest. properly weighed impact.

I have voted on everything you can think of - but they must be run well and correctly.

Most importantly, the reason why I don't try to preclude specific types of arguments is because I think everyone should be able to debate how they want - whatever you want to run in front of me, do it! The activity gets stagnant and exclusionary if everyone just did the same thing every time; there is no one way to debate and no one way to judge a round.

Feel free to challenge me and my perceptions, to educate and entertain me, and to have fun and enjoy the activity that we all have dedicated countless hours in doing.

Try to be kind to each other, stop calling each other lazy or adding quippy personal attacks to refutations; please don't speak loudly while another competitor is speaking and try to maintain decorum when you're not speaking [ie keep the over the top reactions, eye rolls, and laughter down while your opponent is giving a speech].

Email: shannon.castelo@gmail.com

TL;DR: I prefer a good flay/lay case, signpost, give clear voters in the last speech. for LD the value matters- win the FW and connect clearly throughout the case to have the best shot at winning the ballot. Condense, collapse, tell a story. I rarely vote for disclosure or other theory in PF but I guess it could happen if you REALLY know the philosophy behind why this is relevant and worth our time to ignore the substance of this resolution and instead focus on your theory. This is PF- learn the history of this event, it is first and foremost an event that was created to provide a space for substantive issues debate- not policy or theory. If you want to run theory I would suggest you go to LD but I do respect good debaters with logical articulation who know what they are talking about and I will always judge fairly whatever I hear and can follow because debaters are clear.

I am a high school debate coach with a personal background primarily in a speech where I competed in oratory and other traditional speech categories (i.e. extemp, impromptu) I have been coaching debate almost exclusively over the past nine years with my greatest success with LD debaters but I do love PF debate and that it (usually) focuses on traditional debate elements. I have judged debate in all levels of tournaments including the finals at NSDA nationals in LD and Quarterfinals in PF debate.

Priorities for all types of debate

1. Delivery matters, clarity, and signposting are appreciated.

2. I will vote by looking at both flow first THEN considering technical skills and delivery. Road maps are preferred. I expect arguments to be clear and reasonable.

3. Direct and fast question and answer in the crossfire. Be nice, I become frustrated with ugly or rude debaters. I will judge you on your arguments but I can not help but dock speaks when you are unkind to your fellow competitors. We are all human, we all deserve to be treated with respect.

4. I am a judge who loves traditional debate at reasonable speed (not painfully slow speed) I lean toward discounting hyperbolized, unwarranted arguments in the round and really frown on slippery slope to extinction. However, I will not totally discount a sound link chain that gets me to extinction-level impacts.

5. Clear impacts please, as in tell me "the impact is" and you need clear and reliable evidence

6. I want to see clean and ethical sourcing and card cutting.I may call for cards before I vote so be prepared to provide an evidence doc if requested.

7. Clash- LISTEN to the arguments and attack them directly. INTERACT WITH THE MAIN IDEAS OF THE CASE and make sure you respond.

8. Don't rely on just cherrypicking block cards. Debate is about truth-finding. LISTEN and analyze the big ideas seeking logical holes. That shows sophistication and critical thinking.

9. Specifically for PF- if you use policy jargon or tactics that is a hard sell for my ballot. I just believe it is all toxifying the PF and LD debate space. If you think you can improve the debate space then tell me how and why that should be the prior question in the round. If the logic is clear and delivered well I will consider it, of course.

10. Specifically for LD- Value FW is essential. I look for the connection of each contention level arg back to value. VC is optional for me but I want to see a value argument. I always weigh FW in LD! Give me those philosophical explanations- WHY should I value life? WHY should I value security? Who says so? Show me that you have done the HW and know what you are talking about when you claim that Liberty is important. Definitions will be important.

11. The story is a big deal for me. What is the theme of your case? Is there a throughline that ties all your contention-level arguments together? This shows sophistication in your debate style

12. Will disclose if allowed.

I am a past debeater turned first year coach. Be respectful to everybody in the room. Talk slow enough to be understood clearly. Do not talk over your opponent(s) during crossfire. Off the clock road maps are appreciated. I vote based on the flow and who upheld/took down arguments the best and was able to convince me of their side.

WSDC asks us to debate on balance and engage with the essential clash of the motion directly. I want to see teams making solid impact analysis and taking the other team's highest ground on directly, while demonstrating to me that they would still prefer their world given a best case scenario outcome on both sides. I also would encourage you all to summarize the debate by the third and reply and give me clash categories / big picture themes. This will help me (and all of your judges) make a clearer decision and process the information of the debate more easily. A judge will find it easier to vote your your side if you make it easy for them to do so by giving the judge what is essentially RFD in your impact analysis and weighing.

I have experience debating in Worlds in high school and British Parliamentary in undergrad and coach a Worlds team currently.

I have been coaching debate, speech, interp, and congress since 2011. I am pretty open to most types of debate, but I have some specific requirements for the individual debates and overall.

All Debates

Flow: I am generally a flow judge unless the event dictates otherwise. For PF, LD, and CX I will decide my win based on my flow.

Speed: I am fine with speed. That being said, I do expect to understand your SPEECH while you are giving it. If your speed causes you to slur words, not be understandable, or go too fast to make the round enjoyable, I will take off speaker points.

Courtesy: I expect a level of courtesy from all debaters at all times. If you ask a question, let your opponent answer. I also expect those answering questions to not waste time and answer with that in mind. Any form of discrimination WILL NOT BE TOLERATED in argumentation or remarks to one another. I will give you the loss and report you to tab if you make sexist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, ableist, or any other sort of discriminatory remarks. Additionally, I expect you to treat your opponents with respect. Calling them "liars" or implying or saying they are a worse debater than you is not a way to get on my good side.

Abusive Debate: I am a pretty intelligent lady, so I expect you to refrain from telling me what is on the ballot and follow what is on the ballot in the round----you should win with your arguments, not weaponizing rules. Focus on the debate, not reading to me what the ballot says. I can entertain some theory debate, but if you spend the whole round on that and not debating the topic at hand (or actively K'ing it effectively), you've lost me. Calling your opponent abusive without providing substantial support won't win you anything in my book, but remember, you should be able to win on the merits of the debate itself.

Weighing: I appreciate the active weighing of impacts in rounds; however, I do not immediately jump to a nuclear war impact or extinction impact without CLEAR LINKS that the resolution will make that happen. We live in a world where those things are possible by just walking outside, so I need to see the WHY of these arguments specific to the debate itself. Weighing only works if there are links to those impacts.

Tech/Truth: I will be honest- I am more of a "truth" person. I believe in discussing real-world issues in the round. However, I appreciate tech arguments as long as they fit within the confines of the debate.

Evidence: Clipping or misconstruing evidence will earn you a loss.

Specific Debates

Public Forum: I expect good speaking in public forum and accessibility to what you are saying. Public Forum needs to be as much about analysis and rhetoric as it is about evidence. Do not run plans in Public Forum.

Lincoln-Douglas: I do expect some framework debate, and I do not think LD is a one-person policy round. There needs to be active engagement with the opposing side. I am not a HUGE fan of plans/counterplans in LD, but K’s are fine.

Policy: I am pretty much down for anything, but I expect you to engage with the opposing side. I am likely to vote on T, especially if a plan or counterplan is abusive. All that said, CX should still be organized and involve good speaking skills.

Big Questions and World Schools- I expect these to be respectful debates that resemble a conversation about the topic rather than an attack on your opponent.

World Schools (specifically)- In World Schools, this should look like World Schools- NOT POLICY. I will not entertain spreading, over-sourcing, or not using good style, strategy, etc. For prepared motions, I also will not entertain abusive debate that is so limited it is impossible to prepare for before the tournament. Do Policy if you like Policy that much.

Affiliation: Clackamas High School

Competitive experience: 2 years of NPDA (college parli), 1 year of CEDA (college policy)

Coaching/Judging experience: 6 years of NPDA coaching with 45-60 rounds judged per year, 11 years coaching high school policy

Pronouns: He/him

For 2024-2025: I am done with Court Clog. Run it at your own risk of me evaluating your cards on my own.

I’m into philosophy. It was my major for my decade-long undergrad, so that won’t change anytime soon.

I'm also a former law student focused on immigration, employment, and labor.

Although I have run topical affirmatives with a plan in the past, I have generally moved towards the critical as I have continued (From a Heg and Econ National Security Courts aff to Lovecraft performance and high theory).

In CEDA, I have gone for the Cap K with a Historical Materialism alt in every one of my 2NRs. This does not mean that I will automatically pick you up if you run it, but I will be familiar with most of the arguments and authors involved in that debate.

I have come to grips with the fact that I am not very good at evaluating Framework. This does NOT mean you shouldn't run it in front of me or go for it. I think Framework is a valuable debate to be had in most rounds and I encourage people to look at varying forms of this argument in debate. You should be aware, however, that I am not going to be able to fully appreciate the nuances of Framework arguments. It's really not you, it's me.

I hold a high regard for creativity in debate, both in strategy and style. In my mind, creativity is the reason debate is such a fantastic activity. I particularly like arguments that are novel, strange, or Weird.

I am also pretty expressive in round. If you notice me nodding my head or or making a face that suggests "Hey, that sounds reasonable" then that probably means I'm thinking that. If I look up in disgust or confusion, then that means I am probably experiencing one of those things.

All that being said, I am open to most any position or style so long as you can articulate why your arguments are preferable.

Also, feel free to find me outside of rounds and ask me about a round (please bring your flow or be specific about what went on in the round, I can only remember so much on demand) or about general arguments and strategies or whatever.

Clarity: I flow all speeches in the debate and I stick to that flow when making my decision. I will call clear if I can’t understand you. If you are still not understandable to me after I call clear twice, I will stop flowing what I cannot understand.

Clipping: If there is a challenge relating to clipping cards, it must be brought with video evidence. If a team has been shown to be clipping cards in my round; that team will receive a loss and the clipper will receive 0 speaker points for that round.

File sharing: Please make sure you are making a speech doc and not just sending whole files and then reading things in a different order than from what is presented. It can make things confusing for everyone in the round and throws me off if I think you didn't send the evidence when it's just four pages down.

Email: forensicsresearchinstitute@gmail.com

Lynne Coyne, Myers Park HS, NC. 20+ years experience across formats

GENERAL COMMENTS

I have coached debate, and been a classroom teacher, for a long time. I feel that when done well, with agreed upon “rules of engagement”, there is not a better activity to provide a training ground for young people.

Debate rounds, and subsequently debate tournaments, are extensions of the classroom. While we all learn from each other, my role is parallel to that of an instructor. I will evaluate your performance. I see my role as to set a fair, but stringent, set of expectations for the students I am judging. At times, this means advancing expectations that I feel are best for the students and, at times, the broader community as well. I see myself as a critic of argument , or in old school policy lingo, a hypothesis tester. The resolution is what I vote for or against, rather than just your case or counterplan, unless given a compelling reason otherwise.

Below please find a few thoughts as to how I evaluate debates.

1. Speed is not a problem. In most of the debates I judge, clarity IS the problem not the speed of spoken word itself. I reserve the right to yell “clear” once or twice…after that, the burden is on the debater. I will show displeasure… you will not be pleased with your points. Style and substance are fundamentally inseparable but I recognize that low point wins are often a needed option, particularly in team events. The debater adapts to the audience to transmit the message-not the opposite. I believe I take a decent flow of the debate.

2. I generally dislike theory debates littered with jargon (exception is a good policy T debate that has communication implications and standards—if you’ve known me long enough this will still make you shake your head perhaps). Just spewing without reasons why an interpretation is superior for the round and the activity is meaningless. Disads run off the magical power of fiat are rarely legitimate since fiat is just an intellectual construct. I believe all resolutions are funadamentally questions of WHO should do WHAT--arguments about the best actor are thus legitimate. I am not a person who enjoys random bad theory debates and ugly tech debates. I judge debates based on what is said and recorded on my flow--not off of shared docs which can become an excuse for incomprehensibilty. I look at cards/docs only if something is called into question.

3. Evidence is important. In my opinion debates/comparisons about the qualifications of authors on competing issues (particularly empirical ones), in addition to a comparison of competing warrants in the evidence, is important. Do you this and not only will your points improve, I am likely to prefer your argument if the comparison is done well. All students should have full cites for materials.

4. I am not a “blank state”. I also feel my role as a judge is to serve a dual function of rendering a decision, in addition to serving a role as educator as well. I try not to intervene on personal preferences that are ideological, but I believe words do matter. Arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic etc will not be tolerated. If I see behaviors or practices that create a bad, unfair, or hostile environment for the extension of the classroom that is the debate round, I will intervene.

The ballot acts as a teaching tool NOT a punishment.

5. Answer questions in cross-examination/cross-fire. Cross-ex is binding. I do listen carefully to cross – ex. Enter the content of CX into speeches to translate admissions into arguments. Do not all speak at once in PF and do allow your partner to engage equally in grand cross fire.

6. Debating with a laptop is a choice, if you are reading from a computer I have three expectations that are nonnegotiable:

A) You must jump the documents read to the opposition in a timely manner (before your speech or at worse IMMEDIATELY after your speech) to allow them to prepare or set up an email chain.

B) If your opponent does not have a laptop you need to have a viewing computer OR surrender your computer to them to allow them to prepare. The oppositions need to prep outweighs your need to prep/preflow in that moment in time.

C) My expectation is that the documents that are shared are done in a format that is the same as read by the debater that initially read the material. In other words, I will not tolerate some of the shenanigan’s that seem to exist, including but not limited to, using a non standard word processing program, all caps, no formatting etc..

7. Weighing and embedded clash are a necessary component of debate. Good debaters extend their arguments. GREAT debaters do that in addition to explaining the nexus point of clash between their arguments and that of the opposition and WHY I should prefer their argument. A dropped argument will rarely alone equal a ballot in isolation.

8. An argument makes a claim, has reasoning, and presents a way to weigh the implications (impacts). I feel it takes more than a sentence (or in many of the rounds I judge a sentence fragment), to make an argument. If the argument was not clear originally, I will allow the opponent to make new arguments. If an argument is just a claim, it will carry very little impact.

9. Kritics are not my strength--and I have a real problem with running multiple ideologies simultaneously that have inherent contradictions. Policy questions are all WHO should do WHAT so link your critical stance to the resolution, an action engagement by the other team/individual, or a plan/assumption of the resolution. I am less likely to be persuaded by a debate infrastructure kritic than any other--many of these seem to aim to win a shiny trophy based upon hijacking the suffering of others rather than an authentic engagement with the specifics of any round.

POLICY

At the NCFL 2023 I will be judging policy debate for the first time in a decade. Here is the warning: I know the generic world of policy, but not the acronyms, kritiks, etc., of this topic. You need to slow down to make sure I am with you. As in all forms of debate, choice of arguments in later speeches and why they mean you win not only the argument, but the round, is important. If you are choosing to run a policy structured argument in another format--better be sure you have all your prima facia burdens met and know the demands of that format.

Choose. No matter the speech or the argument.

Please ask me specific questions if you have one before the debate.

email: mikaylacfair@gmail.com

I competed in PF all four years of high school and went to nationals in PF. I also did OO and FEX. I currently compete in collegiate parliamentary debate (NPDA). Plus, I've coached and judged just about every format of debate. I will tell you that I used to be very "trad" in debate, but now have become sufficiently acquainted with "prog" debate (k's, theory, etc.)

I understand that debate can be stressful and sometimes the decision of a judge may seem unreasonable, missing, or unclear, so if you have any questions about my decision/comments feel free to email me at mikaylacfair@gmail.com.

Paradigm:

General- Please be respectful in and out of round. If you are racist, sexist, or homophobic to your opponent or to me, I will vote you down.

Public Forum-

TL: Sign my ballot for me. I should have to interpret what you're doing, you should tell me exactly why you won versus your opponent.

• Please do not argue in cross-examination, and bring up anything important from cross in your next speech.
• Stop referring to arguments as "stupid". It won't help you, but describing its incoherence might.
• Signpost (tell me what you're addressing on the flow).
• Almost nothing should be considered common knowledge, you need to have evidence for your empirics, please do not assume I know all the details of one really specific event.
• Ks/Theory: So long as you properly link it, I'm okay with it. I will warn you it is difficult to do K arguments well with pf time constraints so just be prepared for that. I think theory definitely has a place in any sort of debate, but if you're running theory, you should be all in.
• Framework: Warrant your framework and weigh it against your opponent's fw. Everything should flow through this lens so be sure to link it back into your speeches.
• Evidence Integrity: Please cite all your sources (last name & year). If you cite the same source twice please make it clear that this is a different citation of the same source. Do not power-tag evidence.
• Email chain/doc: Please add to me any email chains or docs you have. I won't pay much attention to the cards in those docs unless they are repetitively contested and I'm told to reference it.
• No email chain/doc: Unless a card is readily disputed (ie. "that doesn't say what they're saying it says") back and forth, I will not call for cards at the end of the round unless one team tells me to.
• Please run reasonable arguments. I know it can be fun to do something kind of outlandish, but just be careful. You should not be running something so obscure simply in an effort to confuse your opponent. If they're confused, I probably am too and I'm not gonna vote for something I literally cannot understand because you listed an insane link chain that's probably kinda weak.
• In general, I'm tech over truth. The flow matters. Functionality matters, don't drop anything, especially your own arguments.
• Spreading: Personally, I'm fine with SOME "spreading" (not policy speed, you're in public forum) in PF just because time constraints suck, but also everyone in round needs to understand you. You shouldn't be spreading as a means of abuse.

Lincoln Douglas-

• Please give proper backing for your value criterion and repetitively bring it up throughout the round.
• The value proven to be most "moral" is the one I will prefer for the round so make sure you uphold this, and better yet, make sure you uphold both values in your case.
• Please impact weigh. Sometimes arguments in LD get really broad, but it's important you apply those impacts in the round (aka. tell me what they mean in context, give empirics, numerics, etc.)
• Ks/Theory: I'm totally okay with these. Link it well and make it loud. If you're running a K, this should be the center of your debate and the first and last thing you discuss. SLOW DOWN for your ROB/Alt. At the same time, please don't ignore the case debate. If you do not get the alternative out nor explain it enough, then I will sympathize more with topicality arguments. If you don't even mention the alternative, there's nothing to vote for and you probably shouldn't run a K. Rejection alts need especially sufficient information.
• Evidence Integrity: Please use reliable sources and don't power tag anything. If you cite a source twice with two different cut portions please make it clear which is which or have a speech doc that can do the same.
• tech over truth
• Please explain why you are overall winning the round, not just individual arguments. This should be connected to the value debate and general framing of the round.

CX-

• TL: Write my ballot for me. Assume I'm kinda stupid and explain exactly why you won.
• Please give me a heads up if you're gonna speak at the speed of light, I will probably opt to flow on my laptop. Additionally, please send me speech docs so I can make sure I am catching everything and mark whatever you don't get to. If you don't send speech docs, I will be more obliged to believe ableism arguments and I probably won't catch everything you say.
• K's: I am good with most K's but there are definitely some dumb ones out there. I personally hate Baudrillard, but I won't punish you for running him. However, if you run Baudi and have a suicide alt, I will vote you down. In general, link it will and emphasize that link story. Also, PLEASE slow down for voters, alt, framework.
• Theory: Go all in. If you're running it, you better win with it. You also need all the elements of a theory argument (interpretation, violation, standards). If you're missing one of those elements, I probably can't vote on it.
• In general, make your arguments coherent. If I have no idea what you could be saying and your opponent says "hey that's incoherent," I will probably believe them.
• Policy always kinda feels lawless to me, so I don't have too many things to say here, but I do ask that you simplify things where you can. I have less experience in this area, but I learned a lot of my debate knowledge from my college debate partner who did policy at Jesuit Dallas.
• This is taken from my partner's paradigm, but this is also my philosophy, partially because he taught me:

  - Counterplans- Pleaseeeeeeeee enough of these nonsensical artificially competitive cps.. For neg, make it specific to the aff, don't read ones with terrible highlighting and throw them at the wall, expecting it to stick. I WILL sympathize heavily on the perm and any aff disads if the counterplan has blatantly artificial scenarios. For aff, definitely read theory. You should be specific in your theory arguments and impact them out with a warrant - " X Is a voter" by itself unironically isn't a voter.

  -DAs - Uniqueness and links are key!! Links need to be well contextualized to the aff and well explained for me to understand them. If you're reading a generic DA like politics, please at least make an effort to explain why the aff triggers the link. Seriously, DAs like politics are almost solely dependent on the perception/signaling of the plan action. It's mostly on the neg to impact out the link, not the aff's ability to defend their plan. That said, the aff still has to make a substantial yet offensive push against the DA.

Congress Judge-I want to hear evidence in your speech. Your opinion does not usually impact the speech very much. Try to address issues brought up by other members of the chamber. Try to avoid rehashing positions unless you are giving very late speeches. I am fairly hard on the PO. I expect them to know the procedures and pay attention. Slowing the chamber down a bit to avoid mistakes is better than going quickly and making errors that get called out.

Speech Events-I am not a speech judge normally. I will fill in for OO, Info, and Extemporaneous Rounds as needed. Anything beyond these speech events, I have not judged or have less than 3 rounds total in my life. I will look towards the piece as a whole. A typical selection that is POI, HI, DI, or Duo/Duet will mean very little to me as I really do not have the background to judge if a piece is a great standard. As such, I will be looking for pieces that make me feel like the performance was a selection or segment of the real life situation that is unfolding. I have watched a few pieces performed that were so real, the actor could have been the author of the selection.

Debate: I am not particularly picky on anything, but please be respectful to your opponent(s). Feel free to run progressive arguments, but beware that I may not get them if you aren't clear.

LD: Make sure to clarify how your criterion supports your contentions! Also, don’t drop all your contentions for the sake of the value debate. Do not make all of your arguments cross-applications of your own case unless there is a legitimate clash. I vote primarily on the quality of coverage.

PF: Any speaking speed is fine, just make sure you are coherent. A heated cross-examination is fine but please don’t spend the entire time yelling at each other. I vote on the quality of evidence and general coverage.

I am the Head Coach at Lakeville North High School and Lakeville South High School in Minnesota. My debaters include multiple state champions as well as TOC and Nationals Qualifiers.

Please add me on the email chain: desereadebates@gmail.com

I am also a history teacher so know your evidence. This also means the value of education in debate is important to me.

I encourage you to speak at whatever speed allows you to clearly present your case. I do not mind speaking quickly, but spreading is not necessary. I will tell you to clear if you are speaking too quickly. One sure way to lose my vote is to disregard my request to slow down. If I cannot hear/understand what you are saying because you are speaking too quickly, I cannot vote for you.

Claim. Warrant. Impact. I expect you to not only explain the links, but also impact your argument. I am impressed by debaters who can explain why I should care about a few key pieces of important evidence rather than doing a card dump.

If you plan to run off case- that's fine, just make sure that you articulate and sign post it well. Don't use narratives or identity arguments unless you actually care about/identify with the issue. You can run any type of case in front of me but do your best to make it accessible to me and your opponent. Please do not run arguments that are harmful to any identities (anti arguments); debate should be a safe space to exchange ideas and engage in public discourse.

Be respectful of your opponent and your judge. Please take the time to learn your opponent's preferred pronouns. I expect you to take your RFD graciously-the debate is over after the 2AR not after the disclosure.

I’ve judged Big Questions at Nationals in 2022 & 2023. I’ve also judged events on the Austin circuit, specifically WS, DX and PF.

A few things to note about my judging style:

First and foremost, my judging room is a safe space open to all points of view, styles and approaches. I enter every round with an open mind and an eagerness to hear a great debate and be persuaded.

Please watch the spreading. I must be able to understand your arguments, speaking too quickly and or slurring will make flowing your argument difficult and could hurt your chances. I cannot stress this enough - clarity of points and counter points are very important to me.

Give clear argumentation, your argument should flow across the debate. You must be clear in your warranting. When giving counter plans, be concise and consistent.

Most importantly, please be respectful and show courtesy to your fellow competitors. Disrespectful / discourteous behavior will be factored into the decision and will most likely result in a loss.

This got too long, I wanted a summary. The full thing is below.

Do what you want in round.

Yes I want to be on the chain, email: mightybquinn@gmail.com, backup: mckenzieb@trinityprep.org

Speaker points are for speaking well (eg. clarity, speed, civility, etc), Wins and Losses are for winning the arguments in the round. They almost always agree (unless this is WSD, then they do always agree, obviously).

I am a wizened old soul flowing in a cooky lil spreadsheet, judge instruction is important.

If there are specific arguments or preferences you want to know about, or if you have unlimited time to scan through paradigms, go look at the stuff below.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

Have fun go wild

General Thoughts:

1. I encourage you to ask me specific questions before the round. Asking me general questions (EG: "How would you describe your paradigm", etc.) before the round won't prompt me to give you very helpful answers, not out of spite or anything, I just can't summarize it. Just be specific with your questions and we'll be good, I'm happy to answer any questions I can. If you have questions that are going to determine or guide your strategy in round then ask them! But I'm not great at summarizing all my thoughts for you on the spot.

2. Tech over truth in nearly every regard, I want to see your arguments and responses to opponents'. Give me clear, evidenced links to support impact scenarios and narrativize them well. I will avoid judge intervention in almost all cases and to the extreme. That is to say, to put yourself in the best position to win I want to see you clearly defend and weigh your points because I will not weigh them for you. I will not automatically default to one position over another when given no reasons to prefer. From a strategic standpoint, it is in your best interest to give me a framework by which to evaluate your impacts even if that framework is localized to weighing your impact.

3. Extensions through ink are usually okay- if it's something critical to your round strategy, especially if it interacts with your opponents' case (e.g. a turn) you should probably be doing at least a little more than this. If you're making an argument that I should invalidate or eliminate entire components of what your opponent has read/said in round, it makes sense to give me at least a brief warrant for why each clust of arguments should be dropped- why does your defense apply to all the things you say it does? Why would I group those arguments that way? Make sure you're implicating and warranting effectively here.

4. I'm always happy to answer questions and listen to concerns/criticisms of my decisions afterwards. I want to get better and so do you, why not help each other. However, I will not change my decision, even if you convince me I've made the wrong one- the best you'll get is a "huh, you're right."

5.THIS IS A NOTE FOR PF. If it takes you longer than 15 seconds to find a card that you claim to have, I will ask you if you want to run YOUR prep time to find it. If you say "yes" then carry on, but maybe consider familiarizing yourself with your evidence so you can find it quicker. If you say "no" then that evidence won't "exist" until you demonstrate that it's real (which could include reading it in the next speech, though that might be too late if your opponents speak between when you cite it and then). Obviously I will be understanding if there are technical difficulties (IE internet cutting out, computer crashing) which I have been made aware of.

Also, while we're on evidence in PF, sending just like, a link to a website isn't great. If your opponent doesn't interact with it I will probably take you at face value, but know that there is a chance (slight) that I will, unprompted, click your link and read the article and if it says something other than what you claimed then I will intervene to vote against you because of this. I won't do this with a cut card unless someone in the round makes it an issue. TL;DR: If you're sending just hyperlinks to articles make sure they say what you claim.

Speed: Sure. I can keep up as long as you are able to maintain clarity. I will call speed if you go too fast, and I encourage you to call speed on your opponent if they are going too fast for you. I will begin docking speaker points on the third time I have to call speed, and if your opponent calls a third time you should expect a good hit to your speaker points. This isn't necessarily a voting issue for me (unless your opponent makes it a voting issue). I will not flow off the doc, but I definitely want to be on the speechdrop/email chain (though I prefer speechdrop). mightybquinn@gmail.com.

AFF: I prefer topical AFFs. I am open to listening to an engaging K AFF (or if your opponent doesn't call T then I guess run whatever you want, obviously), but I would still prefer to listen to a topical AFF. I strongly prefer AFFs that include a plan text of some sort (even if it's a vague/open-ended plan text). I don't like the idea of "reserve the right to clarify" but I understand it's functionality given time constraints. Don't clarify in an utterly unreasonable way (my threshold is pretty high here).

T: Topicality is a stock issue, and as such I will vote on it if it's won. I don't particularly enjoy listening to T arguments, but who really does. I don't particularly love definitions (I.E. "substantial"), unless the original definitions are completely misrepresenting the words of the resolution/rule/etc. That being said, competing interpretations has been doing well in front of me recently so I would hardly call it unviable. Upholding your standards is pretty much the most important thing to do to win T in front of me. You can make your voter "NFA-LD rules" if you want, but there needs to be an articulated voter on T for me to vote on it. I default reasonability, but really I strongly prefer one or both debaters to give me a FW. I will evaluate T on whatever FW is given to me by the debaters. NOTE: My threshold for voting on T is lower than it was my first two years judging, if you happen to remember/have heard that I would not vote on Topicality.

Theory: Pretty much the same as my T paradigm. I'll listen to theoretical positions, just give me some clear standards if you want to win that position in front of me. I default drop the argument if you don't read a warrant for why I should drop the debater, but I believe fundamentally that theory comes first, so it doesn't need to be a great warrant. Clear in-round abuse stories tied to theory arguments, especially those focused on research burden and unfair ground have been successful in front of me in the past, but I don't perceive myself as being uniquely drawn to them. I don't mind Neg debaters running Disclosure Theory against Affs, but unless the Neg runs a CP or an Alt I don't think Affs running Disclosure Theory against Negs is a viable strategy in front of me if the Neg DOES run a CP or Alt then suddenly Disclosure is a viable aff position. (NOTE: this is for LD, for PF aff's can run disclosure theory, it is viable in that realm).

Counter Interps: I think that counter interps are latently defensive unless you tell me otherwise. Honestly, I don't even need a warrant, I just want it specified when you read it that you're trying to gain offense. IMO if it's a "counter" interp it's structured to be defense within the game, if you're styling it as a different, unrelated interp, that just HAPPENS to be about the same thing as the interp they read, I will assume that's offensive. If that's the case though, then it will come down to a model comparison, which is probably what you wanted anyway. This is not like, a carefully thought out assertion or meta-theoretical opinion btw, this is just how my brain will work when I'm flowing what you say at speed, hence I need you to clarify.

Disclosure in PF is a fine theory position to run in front of me, but I will not vote for it on principle alone. I DO generally think disclosure (including rebuttal docs) is a good norm that should be adopted into PF, but that being said, you need to have clear standards, voters and weighing on a theory argument to win. My desire to not intervene in a round far outweighs my desire to punish teams for not disclosing. A role of the ballot framing is also a good strategy in any context if you're going for theory and if you're defending against a position like this then having a counter framework is also a good idea. It's been a while since I've seen someone read a role of the ballot on a theory shell tbh, bring it back.

RVI's: I will vote on conceded RVI's but the threshold for voting on an RVI that's been effectively defended against is probably fairly high. "Don't vote for an RVI" is not enough defense. Explain to me literally any reason to not vote for the RVI. If we get into a "no RVIs" vs "Yes RVIs" debate I'm probably presuming "No" but like, if that's not extended or warranted or if the "yes" is conceded then it is what it is.

CP: I don't have a strong personal predilection to voting on conditionality one way or the other, but I conceptually dislike conditional CP's a lot- that being said, it's not a strong enough dislike for it to matter unless someone in round forces my hand. "Condo Bad" arguments are viable in front of me but by no means will they always win. Perms of the CP need to be actually explained to me. Just hearing "both" won't be a winning position in front of me. I will evaluate the plan vs. CP debate in pretty much the same way that I evaluate the SQ vs. plan debate unless one side offers a different FW. I am okay with the Neg going for CP and SQ in the NR, but I feel like the strategy is risky given that you have to split your time between both positions.

K: I love critical arguments and I was a critical scholar professionally, but don't necessarily expect me to be read up on all of the literature (though I may surprise you). I'm okay with generic links to the AFF, but I definitely like to see good impact calculus if your argument is reliant on a generic link; I need one or the other to be strong for your K to have a chance in a round. I need to know why the impacts of the K outweigh or precede the impacts of the AFF. I prefer Alternatives that have some type of action, but am open to other types of Alts as well. I don't particularly love hearing alts that say we need to theoretically engage in some different type of discourse unless there's a clear plan for what "engaging in X discourse" looks like in the real world (which can include within the debate round at hand, but might have more). Particularly, I enjoy hearing alternatives that call for the debaters in the round to engage in discourse differently (I think this is the easiest type of Alt to defend). Even if the Alternative is to simply drop the AFF in-round, that is enough "real world" implementation of a theoretical Alt for me, though it may need to be warranted more clearly than a post-fiat alt would. Why does the ballot matter to your advocacy?

Other progressive case-ish positions: I'm interested to hear them. I'm traditionally susceptible to de-dev arguments, but tend to be predisposed to disliking "death good" style claims. I'm not intervening to vote up or down either way, just making you aware of preferences.

Clarification: K debate is not the absence of tech- you still need to demonstrate a link and an impact even if those things take a different form or are about different things than they would be in a more traditional arg.

DA: Not much to say here. Give me a good DA story and if you are winning it by the end of the round then I'll probably vote on it. Definitely remember to do weighing between the DA and the AFF though because there's always a good chance that I won't vote on your DA if you can't prove it outweighs any unsuccessfully contested Advantages of the Aff. DA's with no weighing are only a little better than no DA at all.

Solvency: A terminal solvency deficit is usually enough of a reason for me to vote against the aff BUT I need this extended as a reason to vote. You can always say that it's try-or-die, tell me there's a risk of solvency and sure, I'll still grant you that begrudgingly (unless you've really lost the solvency debate). If you're getting offense somewhere else good for you, I'll still vote on that; so like, if your case falls but you have a turn on a CP or an RVI on T or something those are still paths to the ballot. This note is here because I've seen a few rounds where the aff just sort of says "they have at best a terminal no solvency argument" and like- that's enough for them. That's what neg needs at the minimum to win the round.

Preferred Rate of Delivery:Rapid conversation speed. Rate does not factor heavily into my decision. I will not vote against you if you exceed my preferred rate of delivery.

Criterion:May factor into my decision depending on how it's used in the round. I do feel that value and criterion are required elements of a case.

Rebuttals and Crystallization: Voting issues can be given either as you move down the flow or at the end of the speech. Jargon or technical language is acceptable. Final rebuttals should include both voting issues and line by line analysis. Voting issues are not necessary.

Decision:The winner of the key argument will get precedence but I do take into account other arguments as well as how well you speak.

Evidence:necessary

Flow:I keep a rigorous flow

Kasey (she/her/hers) -- Assistant Director of Speech & Debate for the Nampa School District.

background: four years of Idaho high school LD 2016-2020. four years of NPDA at Whitman 2020-2024, finished senior season 2nd at the NPTE and 3rd at NPDA. 6ish seasons of speech, platforms and impromptu in high school and a couple years of limited prep in college.

tl;dr: I am not here to micromanage your debates but to adjudicate them. that being said, access is an a priori issue. if you go out of your way to make debate inaccessible or uneducational, you will have a very difficult time picking up my ballot. if there is something specific you would like feedback on, please tell me.

high school debates

I will flow the whole round and will probably vote there. I would much rather evaluate a debate by the mechanics than if you check the boxes as a "conventionally good speaker" (many of our norms of what makes a good speaker are tied up in systemic bias). Warrant, don't forget impact calc, use your framework. We build arguments in a particular way for a reason.

Things I wholeheartedly love: signposting and brief off-time roadmaps. make it easy for me to know where you are because I vote on the flow and want to put arguments in the right place. I do not feel the need for excessive on-time thank-yous and would rather we spend speech time actually debating.

I don't really have preferences on arguments. Do what you want unless it's advocate for genocide.

NPDA/NPTE

do what you want but know that you will have a hard time picking up running MLM in front of me. I love minutiae as evidenced by Jas and I's tendency to collapse to ptix or spec. I am very willing to entertain an over/underlimiting debate and the weirdest process scenarios you can explain well. Ks are cool and I love listening to them but you need to be able to explain how it works in like the simplest of terms and clearly delineate between pre- and post-fiat impacts.

leaning more tech over truth these days and will vote on the flow unless given a reason not to (see note on access above).

your speaks will probably be higher if you give me an interesting impact scenario that isn't we all die in a nuclear winter.

TL;DR:

· Make it clear and easy for me to see why you won and you'll probably win.

With More Words:

I've judged and coached extensively across events but at this point spend more time on the tab/equity side of tournaments than judging. I am open to pretty much anything you want to read but, in the interest of full disclosure, I think that tricks set bad communication norms within debate. I prefer a round where you are reading two or three off and doing more work on warranting the arguments out than in a round with 10 off and extending something blippy into the 2NR.

Generally Tech>Truth but I appreciate rounds where I don’t hate myself for voting for you. That said, debate is an educational activity and that rounds should be accessible. I will not vote for arguments that are intentionally misrepresenting evidence or creating an environment that is hostile or harmful.

General Stuff:

I'm good with speed and will say clear if I am not. That said, even if I have a speech doc, you'd do best to slow down on tags and analytics. Your speaks will be a reflection of your strategic choices, overall decorum, and how clean your speeches are.

LD/CX Specific:

I have a fairly extensive background in most critical lit; however, I think a lot of tech/prog debaters lose me when they are sloppy about:

1. Not doing enough work on the link debate (why does this aff link to the K? What's internal link to your solvency?)
2. Saying random debate jargon without context and assuming I am going to follow (I find it vaguely amusing when people just yell "they dropped indexicals!" but generally I don't know what to do with that on my ballot unless you tell me more).

I will care and pay attention in round and have judged a bit on Jan/Feb already, but I promise you that I have thought about this topic less than you have, so keep that in mind when figuring out your time allocation.

Evidence (PF):

Having evidence ethics is a thing. As a general rule, I prefer that your cards have both authors and dates. Paraphrasing makes me sad. Exchanges where you need to spend more than a minute pulling up a card make me rethink the choices in my life that led me to this round. Generally speaking, I think that judges calling for cards at the end of the round leads to judge intervention. This is a test of your rhetorical skills, not my ability to read and analyze what the author is saying. However, if there is a piece of evidence that is being contested that you want me to read and you ask me to in a speech, I will. Just be sure to contextualize what that piece of evidence means to the round.

A Final Note:

This is a debate round, not a divorce court and your participation in the round should match accordingly. If we are going to spend as many hours as we do at a tournament, we might as well not make it miserable.

Sure, I'd Love to be on the Email Chain: AMurphy4n6@gmail.com (though speechdrop is easier)

Standard, traditional judge, with experience across all events.

Appreciate clash, weighting, and topicality. Structure of your argument should be explicit ("this, therefore that"). I avoid making any connections on my own. Think about it this way--do you really want the judge having to define your argument for you?

Ks: I don't like them. I accept that they're here to stay and can tolerate them in LD (in good faith), but will be skeptical. I do not consider your opponent to have an obligation to treat the K as valid. Ks have no place in PF. Same goes for other nontraditional strategies and theory battles.

Speed is not an issue. I can keep up. If you're somehow going too fast, I may notify you to slow down, or even stop notetaking entirely, but this is rare. If you plan on spreading you better have explicit signposting.

I will not buy wide leaps in logic and do not appreciate attempts to overwhelm opponents with unwieldly links. "This, therefore this, therefore this, therefore this" is not good faith debating and is often nontopical. If you're being especially egregious I may knock you on topicality even if your opponent does not

Full disclosure: I consider all of forensics to be primarily about public speaking but will not be won over by rhetoric, volume, or flowery imagery. Vocal skills matter but that alone will never win the round.

Hold each other accountable, especially on timing. If a speaker goes way over time, that is the opponent's fault for not stopping them.

No nuclear war impacts please unless the topic is military policy.

Hello!

I am a judge and coach. I competed in IE in high school four four years and Congress in college in Illinois. So sometimes I have slightly different expectations than folks who have always been in debate in Oregon. This is my third year judging and coaching in Oregon. I also coached one type of Supreme Court Debate in Arizona for a year.

I encourage competitors to try their best to try to shape their arguments without attempting to tailor their arguments to an individual judge's paradigm. Particularly when you have several judges, it can be a challenge when their paradigms are not complimentary. Nonetheless, a few general things for me.

For all Debate Styles

• I try to choose the person I think won the debate. Simply because you counter or respond to an argument and say "this shouldn't flow" doesn't mean I have to agree that it doesn't flow.
  
• I value organization greatly.
• I don't automatically vote for someone who wins two contentions. Winning on two smaller points is not as good as winning on the biggest point. In debate terms, I am weighing impact.
• I highly value logical consistency.
• I flow questions/cross but I don't always flow all of it. Using question periods well is a sign of a good debater.
• No personal attacks. I strongly frown on inferred or direct insults. Yes "my opponent is not a good debater" is a personal attack.
• Debate rules are not universal for all of the events. We have different events for a reason.
• Speed is generally fine but I should be able to understand you. If I can't understand your contentions, they won't get flowed and I will end up voting against you. Debaters still need to speak well.
• I love evidence.

For Parliamentary

- Stick to the framing you choose. Don't say it is a value then focus on funding, don't say it's policy and then argue morality

For Lincoln/Douglas

-Funding shouldn't be a key argument in LD.

- the focus of these rounds should be values.

For Policy

-I am generally open to people running Ks and Ts and other parts of the alphabet but I do not vote for them very often. My philosophy has always been that K's should be last resorts when neg or aff bias is unavoidable, not an excuse not to debate a resolution you don't think is cool.

- I have honestly been voting on case a lot lately. The strategy of throwing out a lot of different case documents, DAs, Off Case and On Case arguments, Two T arguments and a K just doesn't impress me.

- If everything leads to extinction, we would already be extinct.

- Courtesy is important in this type of debate as well.

- spreading is fine with me but if you are incomprehensible without me reading your case, you are not debating, you are having me read your case.

For Public Forum

-This type of debate should not have spreading and should refrain from trying to share cases with judges. Policy is one thing, this is something else.

- Public Forum is unique in a number of ways and framing should reflect that. For instance... Public Forum does not have the "no new arguments in final focus or summary" rule that exists in other styles of debate. You might not like it, but it is allowed.

- Explaining a position is not a plan.

- Weighing mechanisms are not required but if both teams agree to them, have fun.

GENERAL: I debated for Bettendorf HS '14-'18. I competed in Public Forum Mainly, little bit of Lincoln Douglas, and tried just about every other event. I was a 3 time national qualifier and this past year became the assistant coach at Bettendorf High School. Lots of national circuit experience in PF. As far as other events go i'm not here to push my or any agenda. My goal is to interpretate your performances in the debates/speech rounds not how I feel or think. My paradigm here is just to make your lives easier. Any questions feel free to ask!!!

For email chains- Daepoole00@gmail.com

I understand that things can be tense at tournaments so I try to keep the things pretty relaxed but with that being said a few things I expect:

1) Shake hands with opponents after round

2) Make sure everyone is ready before we start

Afro pessimism = auto W and 30’s from me.

{Public Forum}

NPF-No new evidence in second speeches or no new after two on the flow. Just be nice to each other everyone is learning.

VPF- Rock roll, just send speech docs if spreading. Better safe than sorry. Not that I can’t flow just want to make sure you are actually reading cards in case and not just like 3 words of a card.

SPEECHES:I like nuanced arguments. Clash is must Summary can be line by line and FF should generally go over the same issues in the same order. But please for everyone’s sake no new in the 2 and make sure you are signposting.

CROSSFIRE:I don't flow crossfire, questions must require some nuance or explanation so don't force opponents to quickly answer yes or no to make them look bad. At the same time answer the questions and move on. If you opponent wants more of an explanation don't just try and push past it for your turn. Feel free to capitalize on concessions but everything that happens in CF must be used in the speeches for me to flow it.

Afro pessimism = auto W and 30’s from me.

{Lincoln Douglas}

NLD- No new evidence in second speeches or no new after two on the flow. Just be nice to each other everyone is learning. Unless you can clearly explain what you are arguing, keep it simple. Novice is to learn and should be treated as such.

VLD- Truth over tech. I'm pretty much a traditionalist in the sense of topical LD debates. Easiest route to my ballot is value, criterion, (definitions if needed) and contention level debate. However I do enjoy a well constructed CP or even good K if actually fighting against real issues and not using K as a chance to win ballots.

Speed: I'm okay with speed normally. Most people I have met cannot spread and they say a bunch of words but don't finish sentences Im not going to write down words you didn't say so don't try it. I like some kind of doc share just to be safe.

SPEECHES:1AR, and 1NR, should be line by line with lots of sign posting. 2NR, and 2 AR should generally go over the same issues in the same order with some form of crystallization. Give me voters and tell me why based on your last speech you should win.

CROSSFIRE:I don't flow crossfire, questions must require some nuance or explanation so don't force opponents to quickly answer yes or no to make them look bad. At the same time answer the questions and move on. If you opponent wants more of an explanation don't just try and push past it for your turn. Feel free to capitalize on concessions but everything that happens in CF must be used in the speeches for me to flow it. CX should be relevant and questions should actually further the debate or be used to clarify questions not as prep time. I will not hold it against you if the cross doesn't go full time if you deemed yourself done with questions.

{Speech events}

Interp- (DI- Whoever moves me the most or makes me the most sad along with clear transitions and character switching will get the top rank.

Hi- Whoever makes me laugh the most along with clear transitions and character switching will get the top rank.

Duo- Whoever makes me laugh the most or Whoever moves me the most or makes me the most sad along with clear transitions and character switching will get the top rank.

Exempt: Usually I prefer 3 main points. Good intro and outro. Sources are dated and usually enjoy when you are able to create a story out of your answering of the question.

Spon: Same thing as above just no sources.

• Please keep your delivery slow and clear.
• I really don't like when debaters are rude to one another. Keep the round civil and courteous.
• Going too fast doesn't help me understand how you are actually debating within the round.
• Let me hear your refutations and turns.

Public Forum Debate - Purist when it comes to style and argumentation. No spreading please. Arguments should be simplistic and accessible for any person to understand. In the end the biggest impacts will win the debate.

I debated 4 intensive years in high school in policy debate. I've coached PF for a few years.

I'm comfortable with various approaches, cases, and theories so long as you can defend it. I'm more interested in clash, critical thinking, and understanding your case, than just repeating your points from your original constructive.

I take detailed notes (flow) during the debate. I do not flow cross examinations. If seeing a specific piece of evidence is relevant to the decision, I will ask for it. Please try to use all of the time allocated to you.

Logical arguments, strength of link chains, and "thinking on your feet" are important. Evidence should help support these arguments and the quality of evidence matters. Please extend arguments through the debate.

Speed is only an issue when words become very garbled and unintelligible - which seems to be the case in some rounds. For speed, a debater actually has to practice it and learn how to breathe. I will not ask for your case so I can follow along while you spread - we are not filing briefs in a court room. Remember debate is a public speaking activity. If I can't understand you, it will not be on the flow.

I would suggest going with a style that is comfortable for you. If you run a Krit (K), you will need to understand the philosophy behind it and be able to defend it - rather than repeating someone else's brief; presenting a K that catches a team off guard isn't enough if you can't cogently respond to basic arguments and counterpoints against it. Convince me of the importance of your Krit rather than going through the motions.

If you run a pre-fiat, independent voting issues, and etc., the bar is raised.

Politeness and courtesy are important.

My PF/LD paradigm is at the bottom.

World Schools Debate Tournament Paradigm:

I am the head coach of Team Golden Desert, the returning co-Chair of Worlds at Nats, and the author of the NSDA Learn Course "Intro to Coaching: World Schools." Our teams been at least 4-2 in prelims at all National tournaments, and been in outrounds of Dallas, SLC, Ft. Lauderdale, Dallas (the second one), Online, Louisville, Phoenix, and Des Moines (where we were Semifinalists). I have judged Semifinals multiple times.

I flow on a spreadsheet to keep track of both arguments and points throughout the round. I score at the end of every speech, although I do occasionally award or detract points based on POIs. My decision will be ready almost immediately upon the end of the round, though I may take a moment to gather what I wish to say to you about why the decision is that way.

I will weigh your content on validity, reliability, and strength. Poor evidence will result in poor content scores, regardless of whether or not your opponents expose these flaws. Their choice not to expose them affects their scores too, but your speech is scored before they speak.

I expect the Proposition team to offer a Burden and lay the ground for the debate. I expect this ground to be based upon the general understanding of the debate. Squirrely ground is not OK. However, I expect the Opposition to reply to the Proposition's burden, even if they decide to persuade me that it was squirrely and attempt to re-establish the ground.

In motions that suggest a mechanism/model, I would like to hear one from the Proposition, but do not require it. If the Opposition has a counter-mechanism, they should offer it *only* if doing so makes the debate stronger, and still maintains clash, not to attempt to draw the Proposition into a corner. The Opposition should be prepared for the Proposition to adopt the proposed mechanism, if Proposition offered none, or to subsume the Opposition's mechanism if it is simply an addendum to what has been said.

If you choose to offer a counter-mechanism, it is your burden to prove that it will work. The Proposition does get access to a certain amount of fiat because they have to attempt to accomplish the motion. So, if the motion is "This House would break up Big Tech," and the Proposition tells me "We do not have to prove that governments would pass legislation breaking up Big Tech, we simply have to prove that it would be a good idea," I'm going to buy that argument. The current political climate may view breaking up Big Tech as anathema, but they didn't write the motion, so I have to cut them some slack. The Opposition, however, has no access to fiat on a counter-mechanism because they are introducing it into the debate. Therefore, if the Opposition says "We propose instead that we would put in place regulations like A, B, and C, and create a position to oversee Big Tech like X," that now becomes something that the Opposition has to prove they could potentially do. Many things that are argued as counter-mechanisms, though, can just be points of advocacy. In the case above, the Opposition could simply say, "Regulation is better than breaking up Big Tech, here's some examples" and they're making an argument, not a mechanism. Those regulations already exist in the status quo, and the Opposition is frequently just saying that we shouldn't make a specific change to the status quo. 99.99% of the time, making the argument is going to be better than trying to get fancy with a Counter-mechanism.

I expect your delivery to sound natural. There should not be a bunch of debate jargon, or a debate about how, theoretically, the ideal debate on this topic should happen. I do not expect to hear cards, or speed, and relying upon the words of others to carry your speech or exceeding natural delivery deliberately and consistently will be penalized.

I appreciate really strong POIs, and I do not expect them to always be questions.

I expect to hear great crystallization in the 3rd speech and reply. This means that arguments may end up being irrelevant to the end-game, and that's absolutely OK. Picking the important arguments is a really important skill and will be rewarded as such.

I don't like requesting POIs in an obviously disruptive manner. I completely understand wanting to break the flow. However, being a jerk is being a jerk.

If you think a reasonable person could see what you are about to do as racist, sexist, ableist, jingoist, ethnocentrist, classist, or in any other way prejudiced, Do Not Say It! Your score will drop precipitously. There is a difference between supporting your side and doing any of these things.

If you are talking over your opponent, ignoring your opponent, or being verbally or physically dismissive toward your opponent, there had better be an amazingly good reason for it. If you fail to engage with your opponent as an intellectual equal worthy of competing against you in the round, you are doing them and yourself an extraordinary disservice, and you are costing yourself copious amounts of speaker points.

Number of Years Coaching: 17 years, all forms of debate--I also debated in HS and coach the Golden Desert World Schools team
NWCTA Coach
Number of Years Judging: 17, primarily PF, LD, and WSD


LD/PF Philosophy:

I expect you to set up the framework by which I should be judging the round. If you fail to do this, even if you think your value argument was wildly compelling, I may decide it subsumes to something else. If you think your value argument is tantamount, tell me that. Crystallizing the round is extremely important.

The framework of your debate should not be about how unfair the structure of the debate is to your side. You chose to enter into debate. You knew the rules. If you'd like them to change, write an editorial for the Rostrum. (NB: You may include observations about how the debate should be weighed/viewed, as these are important to the round, but if you're not arguing for or against the resolution at some point, I am extremely unlikely to pick you up.)

I prefer that LD debate not be conducted at lightning speed. I don't even like my policy rounds conducted that way. Debate is supposed to be about clearly articulating arguments, and if I can't understand you, you aren't doing that. Having a lot of evidence is admirable, but it's not nearly as important as having compelling evidence with clear analysis. You don't win by picking and arranging cards. You win by explaining how these pieces of evidence create a compelling rationale. Cases without clear impact analysis and links will lose in front of me, even if they have 20 pages of citations.

LD/PF Paradigm:
If you don't extend your arguments, they will drop off my flow.

If you plan to run off-case or performative arguments, it is your burden to explain how they link to the debate on the resolution.

I expect you to time one another. Holding each other accountable is important.

I try not to call for evidence, but I expect you to be prepared to hand any evidence requested to myself or your opponents ASAP. If you are failing to provide evidence that should be easily available, I will definitely hold this against you, and I may start charging you prep time to find it.

Please don't ask me to "Drop the debater." I'll drop your opponent's arguments if you've proven that they're bad, but I'm not going to drop them. You don't mean to be making an ad hom attack, but you basically are. If you are, in fact, meaning to make an ad hominem attack because your opponent is being offensive, then that would be the only time I find this terminology appropriate.

If you are talking over your opponent, ignoring your opponent, or being verbally or physically dismissive toward your opponent, there had better be an amazingly good reason for it. If you fail to engage with your opponent as an intellectual equal worthy of competing against you in the round, you are doing them and yourself an extraordinary disservice, and you are costing yourself copious amounts of speaker points.

If you think a reasonable person could see what you are about to do as racist, sexist, ableist, jingoist, ethnocentrist, classist, or in any other way prejudiced, Do Not Say It! Your score will drop precipitously. There is a difference between supporting your side and doing any of these things.

WS

I have been a coach for over 20 years, but like most people (especially on the East Coast) I am relatively new to this event.

I will do my best follow the NDSA norms and judge with 40% content, 40% style, and 20% strategy. I believe that the debaters should provide their own warrants based on statistics and examples. Do not spit evidence. I value debaters that can think on their feet and clearly explain their arguments.

Not a fan of a team standing constantly for POIs, but a couple of well thought out and timed POIs are appreciated. Also unless otherwise noted or argued in the framework, I will assume the motion is global.

PF

Good with speed up to a point, if you go blazing and I miss it, I can't weigh it.

I need each team to tell me why they think they won the round, so I don't have to figure it out on my own.

I have no strict rules about what has to be said in summary, but I expect consistent argumentation. Something from the first four speeches should not just pop up in the final focus as a voter.

It is important that your evidence says what you say it says. If the debaters make a card(s) important to the round, I may call for evidence.

I am a fairly traditional judge but will listen to most any argument as long as it applies to the Resolution.

Please listen to your opponents arguments and have your rebuttal address their arguments.

I can listen to speed to a certain extent, but would rather not to have to tell you to slow down if I cannot hear the argument I cannot judge the argument.

I have coached and judged debate for 25 years.

I will not disclose in round unless told by the tournament to do so.

I am a parent judge for LD.

Please present arguments that are clear and concise and speak at a slow to moderate speed.

I will judge a debate based on how well your framework is constructed, how well it links back to your value criterion, and how it is supported by your evidence. Substance is more important than style.

No new arguments will be considered in a round where the other debater does not have the opportunity to respond.

I will vote for the debater who presents the better arguments and does the better job of persuading me to vote for them based on their arguments and their supporting evidence.

7 years of judging in PF and Congress

Overall Expectations:

Be respectful to your fellow competitors and judges. Debate is educational as well as competitive and the skills that you learn and develop within your event will serve you well later in life. I speak on this as a former debater.

Take pride in the work that you do. It can be very obvious when you are not as prepared. There is an element of debate that does require improvisation and being able to form arguments on the spot but the best arguments are still those that have an element of preparedness to it. Find that balance and I promise it will reflect well on your ballot.

Just like you, I am still learning how to be a good judge, so I ask for some patience, especially in events like PF and LD where I do not have nearly as much experience as I do with Congress.

Any kind of argument based on bigoted ideology will result in an instant loss of the round and I will be discussing it with you and your coach.

Congress:

Congress is probably the most unique of all of the debate events done at the NSDA level. The speed is much slower and you must be more tactical when you choose to speak. This does not make it any less of a debate event and I expect you to be paying attention to what your fellow competitors are doing in the session. I love clash and have no problem with you doing it from the beginning. Call each other out while staying as respectful as possible, we don't need this to descend into actual Congress.

Respect is paramount in Congress. While an individual event you should work together with your fellow representatives/senators to come up with strategies, set the docket, and pass legislation. This is a mock Congress and you should take into consideration the needs of the people you are supposed to be representing.

Questions are super important in debate and I consider it when making my decision. Quality is always more important than quantity. I'd rather that you be asking 1 or 2 good questions than 5 or 6 not-so-good ones.

PF:

The main element that is needed within PF is the ability to adapt. Not only to your opponent but to your judge as well. I am not a very technical judge. While keeping track of your flows your argument needs to make sense. You can't just argue that if the status quo changes it will lead to nuclear war. I need a sound argument of cause and effect. If the prompt proves to be true then it will lead to these side effects.

If your point isn't landing don't drag it along toward the end. Cut it out if you can't get past your opponent's refutation. The best debaters don't force through an argument but are flexible and creative enough to still get the point even when one of their points doesn't work.

During cross don't talk over one another. You are not proving a point you are just being rude. I will be paying attention during cross and will be using that to weigh into my decision. If you are talking I am listening. The first time I won't say anything but if it continues to become a problem I will say something and you don't want your team to lose a point because of it.

LD:

I am relatively new to judging LD so please bear with me.

If you have any questions please feel free to email me at sky.stefanski14@gmail.com

Email chain: andrew.ryan.stubbs@gmail.com

Policy:

I did policy debate in high school and coach policy debate in the Houston Urban Debate League.

Debate how and what you want to debate. With that being said, you have to defend your type of debate if it ends up competing with a different model of debate. It's easier for me to resolve those types of debate if there's nuance or deeper warranting than just "policy debate is entirely bad and turns us into elitist bots" or "K debate is useless... just go to the library and read the philosophy section".

Explicit judge direction is very helpful. I do my best to use what's told to me in the round as the lens to resolve the end of the round.

The better the evidence, the better for everyone. Good evidence comparison will help me resolve disputes easier. Extensions, comparisons, and evidence interaction are only as good as what they're drawing from-- what is highlighted and read. Good cards for counterplans, specific links on disads, solvency advocates... love them.

I like K debates, but my lit base for them is probably not nearly as wide as y'all. Reading great evidence that's explanatory helps and also a deeper overview or more time explaining while extending are good bets.

For theory debates and the standards on topicality, really anything that's heavy on analytics, slow down a bit, warrant out the arguments, and flag what's interacting with what. For theory, I'll default to competing interps, but reasonability with a clear brightline/threshold is something I'm willing to vote on.

The less fully realized an argument hits the flow originally, the more leeway I'm willing to give the later speeches.

PF:

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.

Worlds:

Worlds rounds are clash-centered debates on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Style: Clearly present your arguments in an easily understandable way; try not to read cases or arguments word for word from your paper

Content: The more fully realized the argument, the better. Things like giving analysis/incentives for why the actors in your argument behave like you say they do, providing lots of warranting explaining the "why" behind your claims, and providing a diverse, global set of examples will make it much easier for me to vote on your argument.

Strategy: Things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round.

Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world.

-- LD NOTE FOR 2024--

Speed is completely fine, but if you're going 90% full speed and up I will be a bit more reliant on the doc. I am fine with spreading (especially if it's clear) but am out of practice with flowing top speed LD rounds. I don't have a ton of topic knowledge, as I mostly coach PF now.

— FOR NSDA WORLDS 2024 —

Please ignore everything below - I have been coaching and judging PF and LD for several years, but evaluate worlds differently than I evaluate these events. This is my second nationals judging worlds, and my 3rd year coaching worlds.

I do flow in worlds, but treat me like a flay judge. I am not interested in evaluating worlds debates at anything above a brisk conversational speed, and I tend to care a lot more about style/fluency/word choice when speaking than I do in PF or LD.

—LD/PF - Updated for Glenbrooks 2022—

Background - current assistant PF coach at Blake, former LD coach at Brentwood (CA). Most familiar w/ progressive, policy-esque arguments, style, and norms, but won’t dock you for wanting a more traditional PF round.

Non-negotiables - be kind to those you are debating and to me (this looks a lot of ways: respectful cross, being nice to novices, not outspreading a local team at a circuit tournament, not stealing prep, etc.) and treat the round and arguments read with respect. Debate may be a game, but the implications of that game manifest in the real world.

• I am indifferent to having an email chain, and will call for ev as needed to make my decision.
• If we are going to have an email chain, THE TEAM SPEAKING FIRST should set it up before the round, and all docs should be sent immediately prior to the start of each speech.
• if we are going to do ev sharing on an email, put me on the chain: ktotz001@gmail.com

My internal speaks scale:

• Below 25 - something offensive or very very bad happened (please do not make me do this!)
• 25-27.5 - didn’t use all time strategically (varsity only), distracted from important parts of the debate, didn’t add anything new or relevant
• 27.5-29 - v good, some strategic comments, very few presentational issues, decent structuring
• 29-30 - wouldn’t be shocked to see you in outrounds, very few strategic notes, amazing structure, gives me distinct weighing and routes to the ballot.

Mostly, I feel that a debate is a debate is a debate and will evaluate any args presented to me on the flow. The rest are varying degrees of preferences I’ve developed, most are negotiable.

Speed - completely fine w/ most top speeds in PF, will clear for clarity and slow for speed TWICE before it impacts speaks.

• I do ask that you DON’T completely spread out your opponents and that you make speech docs available if going significantly faster than your opponents.

Summary split - I STRONGLY prefer that anything in final is included in summary. I give a little more lenience in PF than in other events on pulling from rebuttal, but ABSOLUTELY no brand new arguments in final focuses please!

Case turns - yes good! The more specific/contextualized to the opp’s case the better!

• I very strongly believe that advocating for inexcusable things (oppression of any form, extinction, dehumanization, etc.) is grounds to completely tank speaks (and possibly auto-loss). You shouldn’t advocate for bad things just bc you think you are a good enough debater to defend them.
• There’s a gray area of turns that I consider permissible, but as a test of competition. For example, climate change good is permissible as a way to make an opp going all in on climate change impacts sweat, but I would prefer very much to not vote exclusively on cc good bc I don’t believe it’s a valid claim supported by the bulk of the literature. While I typically vote tech over truth, voting for arguments I know aren’t true (but aren’t explicitly morally abhorrent) will always leave a bad taste in my mouth.

T/Theory - I have voted on theory in PF in the past and am likely to in the future. I need distinct paradigm issues/voters and a super compelling violation story to vote solely on theory.

*** I have a higher threshold for voting on t/theory than most PF judges - I think this is because I tend to prefer reasonability to competing interpretations sans in-round argumentation for competing interps and a very material way that one team has made this round irreparably unfair/uneducational/inaccessible.***

• norms I think are good - disclosure (prefer open source, but all kinds are good), ev ethics consistent w/ the NSDA event rules (means cut cards for paraphrased cases in PF), nearly anything related to accessibility and representation in debate
• gray-area norms - tw/cw (very good norm and should be provided before speech time with a way to opt out (especially for graphic descriptions of violence), but there is a difference between being genuinely triggered and unable to debate specific topics and just being uncomfortable. It's not my job to discern what is 'genuinely' triggering to you specifically, but it is your job as a debater to be respectful to your opponents at all times); IVIs/RVIs (probably needed to check friv theory, but will only vote on them very contextually)
• norms I think are bad - paraphrasing!! (especially without complete citations), running theory on a violation that doesn’t substantively impact the round, weaponization of theory to exclude teams/discussions from debate

K’s - good for debate and some of the best rounds I’ve had the honor to see in the past. Very hard to do well in LD, exceptionally hard to do well in PF due to time constraints, unfortunately. But, if you want to have a K debate, I am happy to judge it!!

• A prerequisite to advocating for any one critical theory of power is to understand and internalize that theory of power to the best of your ability - this means please don’t try to argue a K haphazardly just for laughs - doing so is a particularly gross form of privilege.
• most key part of the k is either the theory of power discussion or the ballot key discussion - both need to be very well developed throughout the debate.
• in all events but PF, the solvency of the alt is key. In PF, bc of the lack of plans, the framing/ballot key discourse replaces, but functions similarly to, the solvency of the alt.
• Most familiar with - various ontological theories (pessimistic, optimistic, nihilistic, etc.), most iterations of cap and neolib
• Somewhat familiar with - securitization, settler-colonialism, and IR K’s
• Least familiar with - higher-level, post-modern theories (looking specifically at Lacan here)

School affiliation/s - please indicate all (required):

The Hockaday School

Years Judging/Coaching (required)

24

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event (required)

22

Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year (required)

Check all that apply

__X___I judge WS regularly on the local level

__X___I judge WS at national level tournaments

_____I occasionally judge WS Debate

_____I have not judged WS Debate this year but have before

_____I have never judged WS Debate

Rounds judged in other events this year (required)

~50

Check all that apply

____ Congress

____ PF

____ LD

____ Policy

____ Extemp/OO/Info

____ DI/HI/Duo/POI

____ I have not judged this year

____ I have not judged before

Have you chaired a WS round before? (required)

Yes

What does chairing a round involve? (required)

Chairing means making sure everyone is present and ready, calling on individual speakers and announcing the decision. I usually announce the decision then ask the other judges to provide feedback before providing my own.

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else? (required)

WSD is what debate would be if people stopped the tactics that exclude others from the debate and arguments. The delivery and required clash of WSD means that there is no hiding from bad arguments or from good arguments.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate? (required)

I flow on excel using techniques like other formats. I attempt to get as much of the details as I can.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain. (required)

It depends on the motion. On a motion that tends towards a problem-solution approach I will tend to prefer the practical, but on a motion that is rooted in a would or believes approach I tend towards the practical.

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? (required)

For me, strategy is how the speaker addresses the large clashes in the debate and compares those clashes for one another. For example, if the debate is about the efficacy of green patents I am looking for the speaker to address something that exists in the assumption that efficacy is good or bad.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast? (required)

I do that in the style section.

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read? (required)

I tend to grant both claims as being true and then look to see if the claims are mutually exclusive. If they aren’t then I look at whether the teams advanced a burden/principle that supports their side. Included in this is an evaluation of whether a side has compared their burden/principle to the other team’s.

How do you resolve model quibbles? (required)

I don’t like to resolve these issue because they often revolve around questions of fact, which I can’t resolve in a debate where there are no objectively verified facts. I tend to go through the same process as I do when it comes to evaluating competing claims.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels? (required)

First, I think both sides have the option to have a model or countermodel, but it is not required in the debate. Second, I think about the practical and the world each side creates. If a team is comparing their world to the world of the other team then I tend to follow that logic. Hopefully, both teams are doing this and then they are using their burden/principle to explain why their world is more important for me to vote for. One item that I tend to not enjoy is when teams treat models and countermodels as plans and counterplans and attack each other’s position without a comparison. Keep in mind that reasons the other team’s position fails are not reasons your position succeeds!

If I am judging you in an event other than WSD.

I am sorry, it has been several years since I have judged anything else but WSD. I do not subscribe to the technique over truth paradigm, nor do I want to listen to a mistakes driven debate. I want to see clash, not strategies geared towards avoiding/trapping the other side. Please do not spread, I will not flow that fast and I will not go back and reconstruct your speech using a speech document. Acts of exclusion will result in low points and possible loss of the ballot. I know this is a list of do not's rather than do's so I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

LD:

I am more traditional than progressive but I will listen to progressive arguments IF they still fall under the philosophical ideas of LD. I do not want to hear a plan or use the motion as the plan text. Don't use a K to avoid debating. That's not what debate is about,especially LD. I WILL NOT vote on disclosure theory so don't take the time to run it. That is not debating the topic but finding a way to not have to debate. Otherwise, I will listen to Ks, Ts, Disads, etc if they are relevant to the debate. If you don't have a V and a VC, you won't get the win from me! Don't be condescending in your cross-ex. Acting like you don't care about the answer the other person gave or interrupting them before they get the answer out is not okay. If you wanted a shorter answer then ask a more succinct question. All debates need to clash. I don't want to only hear prepared speeches on both sides. Show me that you are listening to what the other person/team is saying and advance the debate. Ultimately, I want a debate, not a round of game play trying to win the round without actually debating to win.

Email: dyates@usd313.org

I prefer speechdrop but do what you must.

Experience:

Head Coach @ Buhler High School

- Former Head Coach @ Nickerson HS 2019-2023

- Assistant Coach @ Salina South 2017-2018

- College: 4 Years Parli Debate, NFA-LD, and Limited Prep @ Kansas Wesleyan University from 2014-2018.

- High School: 4 Years Debate/Forensics at El Dorado HS (2010-2014). Did pretty much everything.

I am a huge advocate in you doing you. I will list my preferences, but know that I do find myself open to nearly any argument/strategy/style within reason. Please do not feel like my paradigm below should constrain you from doing arguments that you believe in.

• Be respectful and debate with integrity. Overt rudeness and exclusionary/offensive language and/or rhetoric will lose you my ballot.

• Substantive arguments and clear clash/organization is a must. I will not vote for unethical arguments (e.g. racism good). Please weigh arguments clearly and have a nice technical debate. Clean flows make happy ballots.

• Tech first, but not only tech. Immoral arguments will not win my ballot even if they are won 'on the flow'. Please provide a FW for weighing and evaluating the round. Don't make me have to decide why you won - you may or may not agree with my conclusions.

• I am receptive to framework and theory. I do not usually vote on procedural arguments on violations alone - extend and weigh your impacts on the procedural if you go for it in the 2R

• Kritikal arguments are good. I guarantee I like them more than you think I do. Explain your alt to me. RotB arguments take a second for my brain to process because I am a big ol' dummy, so I will want clear warrants for how and why the claim is true that my ballot does something.

• Alternative approaches (Performative Affs, K Affs) are okay but I am in all honesty less familiar with these approaches. Please explain to me the reasoning/justification for your methodology in plain-ish language if you go this route. Like the K, I like these arguments more than you might think. Please don't take my lack of exposure as a lack of willingness to vote on it.

• Please be clear on the flow. Also, please flow.