I debated for four years in Dallas (2000-04), including national circuit and TOC. I have judged, though not extensively, in the time since then.

I am by nature a standards judge. You should establish a clear standard for me to look at and link all the arguments back to it. If they don't link, they don't count. If there is no standard, I can't help but intervene on what I like because there is no other way for me to adjudicate the round.

I will evaluate pre-standard arguments in a pre-standards way, but you have to give me a good reason why it is in fact pre-standards. By this I mean things like definitions and topicality. One of my pet peeves is people labeling 12 arguments as pre-standards or “a priori” (ICK) when they are not. I am smart enough to tell the difference. You won't win that argument and you will be penalized speaker points.

Any type of argument (stock, critical (kritic-al?), or otherwise) is fine so long as it is well warranted and well explained.

What to do:

• Establish a clear standard and link everything to it
• Debate in blocks of analysis rather than warrantless blips
• Be polite and clear
• Give voters

What not to do:

• Speak so quickly that I can't understand you. I have dropped kids because they didn't pay attention to my nonverbals. If I'm not flowing arguments, I can't vote off them. A quick pace is fine, but pay attention to what I'm doing.
• Theory debates. This topic is a really good one. Debate the issues instead of debating debate. This is another pet peeve. Besides from being excruciating for the judge to hear 8 sentences claiming different 8 arguments for why education is important, please realize that high school debate does end at some point and you will benefit from spending time researching the issues, not sneaking into your policy team's tubs.
• Be overly complicated. The mark of a smart debater, and a smart person, is being able to explain things in a simple and concise way. I am not impressed by kids throwing around Zizek and Baudrillard or anyone else. I'm impressed by solid, well-explained analysis.
• Be rude.

Please feel free to ask questions before and after the round. I will make myself as available as possible so long as we don't make the tournament go late.

Anthony Berryhill Yale Ph.D. Candidate/ Stanford BA Strikes: Harker School

How I decide a round: I first look to the CRITERION/STANDARD for evaluating the round, since that tells me what arguments should or should not matter. I tend away from voting on arguments labeled “apriori” or “prestandards” since the point of a standard is to define which issues matter or not. I find that most debaters who use “aprioris” or “prestandards” arguments are too afraid to actually engage in substantial weighing and impact calculus—so if I'm judging you, don't rely on me actually voting for these labels to an argument. If an argument is actually big enough to be worthy of winning on face, you have to do the work of articulating a very clear story as to why is has the weight it does. Labels like “apriori” therefore, mean nothing to me. (and for goodness sake don't call multiple arguments like this “aprioriS”)

I then look to offensive extensions which are explicitly linked to a standard identified as sufficient for me to judge. It helps if these extensions have evidence specific claims attached and/or are COMPARATIVE to the opponent offense. The more comparative, and the deeper the analysis of the extension, the more likely I'll pull the trigger. This means more than just saying “I win X point, it outweighs on magnitude”—you'll have to give me formal structured voting issues which are highly comparative to see higher than a 28 from me.

End of the round, I vote on who did more work for me in terms of resolving all of the issues in the round both from an analysis and technical point of view. I am fiercely name-blind in judging, and try to keep my hands out of political games, ego clashes or “popular” trends of debating. Bottom line: if you don't do the work to make it easy for me to vote for you---8 bids or no, you will drop my ballot. As a hint: attempts to argue with me about decisions when this advice has not been followed, usually ends up in disaster. (I have given 0s/30 before, so I'm not the judge to cross-examine) I'll be nice, super helpful, and even tell you hints on your debating I probably shouldn't from a competitive point of view—be nice to me and I'll be nice in kind.

On theory: I will only listen to it when there is DEMONSTRATED IN ROUND ABUSE. I will probably not flow or listen to arguments that impact to potential abuse. Similarly, blatant use of theory as a time suck, or a way to abuse the affirmative will likely be severely punished with point deductions and/or a loss. Stick to the substance, until actual abuse happens.

Also, if you are going to run theory, please be a little creative in how you word it—if I hear “debate is a competitive activity” as a warrant, I will start snarling during your reading of the policy theory shell. If you want me to go for theory, you'll have to use your own rhetoric and emotionally persuade me it's worth listening to. I'm not one of those judges that just picks up on the “4-point structure” of a theory block or that stuff.

Technical preferences: SIGNPOST CLEARLY: It is mandatory that you clearly signpost by card/subpoint/claim. Do not just randomly drop blocks on a contention without telling me exactly what they answer, and how. This may require more signposting than you are used to with other judges. Since I flow on laptop, if you don't signpost, I don't know where to put your answers on the spreadsheet, which means, your arguments don't get transcribed.

READ CASES CLEARLY: Do not start the 1ac or 1nc with a scatter spread of blippy theory preempts or randomly unorganized arguments at full speed. I know this is the rave, but I honesty cannot flow it, and it seriously annoys me. (it usually ends up in a 3-5 point speaker point deduction, and I don't flow it). It is better to read cases at a normal/fast-conversational pace so people can follow what you are saying. Speed up for rebuttals instead. Bottom line: if I can't follow or understand your case (and/or I can be sure your opponent can't either) I will not flow your case.

In terms of argument content: Arguments relevant to the topic are fine with me, no matter how wacky. I'm not one of those dumb judges who will drop you because they don't “buy” your argument. If the argument is well developed, researched and clearly explained, I'm willing to vote for it.

Overall, I'm hands off about the argumentation and technical aspects of debate (for arguments linked to STANDARDS/CRITERIA). Don't expect me to be open to “progressive” trends in LD like aprioris/prestandards/theory stuff unless you go through the painstaking work to convince me to change my paradigm.

Make sure you sign my ballot for me by resolving all of the issues for me, esp. those you may be losing—through extensive weighing, comparison and crystallization. And also remember, quality of delivery, rhetoric and in round performance definitely do count. In many cases these have been determining factors in critically important bid/break rounds that I've judged at major national tournaments, TOC included.

I debated for four years at Niskayuna High School in New York, primarily on the national circuit. I now attend Swarthmore College where I am majoring in philosophy and neuroscience.

While I debated I was exposed to a pretty wide range of LD styles and am comfortable judging cases which adopt the traditional structure of enumerating a specific value/standard that is then used to weigh argumentation, positions based entirely upon critical theory, or anything in between. Going as fast as you'd like is not a problem either, so long as you are clear about where you want me to flow what you say.

Though I don't have any hard-and-fast preferences with regards to the general form and structure of the debate, I do obviously prefer that each round has one. My biggest suggestion if you are going to "adapt" to my judging style would be to be as precise as possible about how you want me to evaluate the debate -- the less work I have to do at the end of the round, the better. If there is analysis that you want me to consider before the standards debate, be sure to justify why, as well as what specific impacts this has. Spending time developing a comprehensive and warranted framework for how the round should be weighed will always make it more likely that you'll pick up my ballot.

And be nice, don't lie, have fun, etc.

Intelligent, well-reasoned and supported arguments which allow for fair debate.

I debated for four years at Lexington High School and teach at VBI. As a general rule, I will vote for the debater who is winning the most significant impact(s) to the standard or winning a pre-standards argument as well as a reason why that argument is pre-standards. Some caveats:

Speed - I can handle speed, but you should not be going so fast that your speech would sound horribly abnormal if recorded and played back at conversational speed. If you can maintain clarity and some semblence of normal intonation, go as fast as you want.

Theory - I don't like it and I won't vote on it unless I'm actually convinced your opponent is doing something wrong. It is stupid to run theory in front of me when you could be spending the time developing a substantive, topical argument instead.

Tricks - I'm not into lies in cross-ex or sentences that explode into a prioris. If you don't think the argument is important enough to develop it the first time you bring it up, I probably won't think it's important enough to vote on the next time you bring it up. I don't expect you to explain your strategy to your opponent, but I also don't expect your voting issues to come out of nowhere.

Critical arguments - I like them and will vote on them, but if your position is intentionally confusing or you obviously didn't write it and don't understand it, I will be less inclined to vote for it. This is one of very few instances in which I will intervene; I believe that critical arguments require a certain amount of intellectual investment, and if you fail to demonstrate that investment the argument will not be successful.

If there's anything else you're concerned about and forget to ask me about it before the round, watch me during it: you'll be able to tell if I'm annoyed.

My paradigm is the following:

Tell me why you win. That means saying why your argument is something I should vote on, and why it outweighs other arguments. Saying your argument outweighs on magnitude because it kills more people tells me nothing, because I don't know why I care about the magnitude of the impact.

If you want to use theory, make sure it's justified- or at least make sure you justify it really well.

I also don't like it when debaters dress poorly.

In high school, I competed locally and nationally for W.T. Woodson in northern Virginia. I am now a freshman at Columbia University in NYC and coach at Stuyvesant High School.

The most important thing for me is that the decision calculus is clear: tell me what issues I look to in what order and why. I'm happy to vote on traditionally structured arguments linking to a value and criterion, a priori overviews, kritiks, or anything else you can come up with as long as you clearly articulate why that argument is what I should look to first (and, of course, win the argument). Crystallization can be big picture or line-by-line, but it must have a place in your last speech.

There are two things I will not vote on. First, I will not vote on things I don't understand. If I didn't understand the 47 Zizek cards you spewed in the AC until they became really clear in the 2AR, it's not fair of me to expect your opponent to understand them the first time around. I can handle speed and have some knowledge of postmodern theory, but make sure you are clear. Second, I will not vote for things that I think are ridiculous. For example, if you want me to buy that Martin Luther King Jr. led a violent revolution, you'd better have a very well-warranted explanation of why that is true. I'm certainly open to unusual and creative arguments, but be smart.

Please don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions!

I am a former LD debater from the NJFL and have been the head debate coach at Whippany Park HS in New Jersey for six years. I do not have any preconceived notions about how rounds will go because each one is so different from the next. Please establish a clear standard for the round and show me not only why yours is better (unless you agree to a common standard) , but how you better achieve it through your advocacy. Warrants and impacts are critical, but don't throw around cards for the sake of packing your case full of cards. The cards must represent well-reasoned analysis that clearly helps your case. Don't tell me in rebuttals "Extend my Stein card." Reiterate what it is and why it matters in the round. Just because someone said something, it doesn't make it inherently warranted or effective for your case. I do not like the use of meaningless (and misapplied) LD lingo. Don't tell me that every attack is a turn because it's probably not. I can flow speed, but I can't stand unnecessary speed; that is, speed only for the sake of speed. I like a good, clean debate with a lot of clash. That means I'd like to hear arguments clearly, and so, too, will your opponent. I'm very open to interesting, perhaps off-beat arguments. However, you have to make them work. They may be effective, or they may be a liability. It's up to you to sell it to me. I am not an interventionist judge. You have to do the debating and make the arguments you need to make in order to win. Theory and kritiks are fine. Whatever approach you take to the round, it's up to YOU to make it work and to sell it to me.

The most important part of the round for me is the value structure. If an argument doesn't link to the value and criterion, it's not getting you anywhere in the round, so I don't look at it in making my decision. Because of that, it's vital that you give me voting issues in your final speech—preferably, two minutes at the bottom of the NR, and the full 2AR—to explain what in the round you're winning, and why it's more important than what your opponent is winning. The more you pull the round together and look at it from a big picture perspective, the easier it is for me to make a decision on the things you want me to vote on, and it's much, much clearer for me when debaters don't do that while going down the line-by-line. Answering your opponent's responses within crystallization is fine, but being so caught up in the flow by this point in the round only serves to muddle things.

Additionally, I really hate arguments that are supposed to win the round independent of the value structure—if the point of the round is to see who best achieves the value, I don't see the point of arguing something that has nothing to do with the value or criterion. If you really feel you have to run something like that in front of me, you need to give me an extremely good reason for doing so, and you need to tell me why that argument still wins you the round if your opponent wins the issues that link to the value structure. I won't drop someone just for running an argument I don't like, but I will look for reasons to vote against the argument, and if it's not completely major in the round, chances are I won't even look at it.

In terms of speed, I can flow it, but I won't if you're unclear or if you're only putting out blips. I'd much rather you speak slowly and clearly, giving a few responses with well-reasoned analysis, than listen to a slew of arguments that aren't explained. It's usually pretty clear if I'm not happy with your speed or clarity, but I'm never going to take off speaker points for going too slowly.

Intelligent, well-reasoned and supported arguments which allow for fair debate.

Intelligent, well-reasoned and supported arguments which allow for fair debate.

EXPERIENCE: I coach at Sacred Heart High School in Massachusetts, as well as at Scarsdale High School in New York. From 1998 to 2004, I coached at Lexington High School in Massachusetts. I debated for Lexington from 1994 to 1998.

OVERALL PARADIGM: There are two things you should know about how I judge. First, I expect debaters to directly engage the issues the resolution presents. As the affirmative, you should provide me reasoned advocacy that supports your side. As the negative, you should give me reasons to accept an advocacy counter to the resolution (so have offense on a comparative topic). "Cap bad," random philosophy (postmodern or other) with a tenuous or unexplained link to the topic, or arguments in favor or against the existence of the state (on a topic that does not call that issue into question) do not strike me as on point.

I do not think you have to run "stock" arguments to affirm or negate. On the contrary, I believe there is an unlimited number of arguments you can make on either side of a resolution, while still staying within the confines of the topic, and I give debaters enormous leeway to run whatever they want, so long as it affirms or negates the specific resolution being debated. That said, if you are not discussing the resolution (if your case is predicated on an abusive definition, for instance), you are unlikely to win my ballot. (As an additional note on topicality, please only argue that your opponent is non-topical if that's true. If your opponent's case is topical, but doesn't meet an essential burden of the resolution, frame your objection to the case in those terms rather than calling it a topicality violation.)

Second, you must be clear and comprehensible to me at all times, which means using the vernacular when making arguments rather than hiding behind polysyllabic rhetoric or ill-explained "critical theory." I consider myself a reasonably intelligent person, and I've been involved in LD for over a decade; by this point, if I don't understand what you're talking about, I will hold it against you.

THEORY: Don't do it (at least not in front of me).

SPEED: Don't do it. If you spread, I won't understand you. If you make me yell out "Clear" or "Slow," it will damage your speaks. Also, PLEASE signpost at all times.

CRITERION: Offering a measurable and objective standard for the round is critical for me. Your criterion should be the focal point of your case - every argument you make in case should link to it. Try not to lose sight of the standard in your refutation; instead, deal with the standards at the top of each rebuttal speech, impact individual responses back to the criterion within your refutation, and impact your voting issues back to the standard(s) in your final speech. Actively incorporate the standards into the substantive debate itself, rather than only dealing with them at the top of the flow.

CRYSTALLIZATION: Do it! Give me voting issues! Numbering and labeling them helps, too. Please limit the number of voters you provide to no more than three or four. Perhaps there really are 45 issues, and perhaps you really are winning all of them, but I don't believe you can adequately analyze why you're winning the voters and how that affects the outcome of the round if you go for too many. I will always favor quality over quantity and substance over strategy, so bear that in mind when crystallizing.

In the NR, leave yourself a minute or so at the end of the speech to provide/recap voters (I prefer crystallization at the end to voters down the flow). In the 2AR, I expect you to address the NR's voters in some way (either by answering them directly or by answering them within your own voters, which I prefer).

WEIGHING: Again, do it - but please avoid using generic tag lines ("I outweigh on three levels: magnitude, timeframe, and probability") without explaining how they relate to the standard (for example, if your standard is protection of the right to life, probability weighing would show how your opponent is likelier to violate the right to life than you, magnitude weighing would show how the number of people killed is greater on your opponent's side, and timeframe weighing would show how loss of life is a long-term harm on the other side). Make sure that you answer your opponent's weighing arguments (that is, the reasons they say they outweigh you) so I'm not left with two non-clashing sets of arguments at the end of the round.

IMPORTANT: If you fail to weigh or give voters, it's up to me to decide the round however I want. Don't be mad if I drop you if you didn't give me any kind of decision calculus.

CONSISTENT ADVOCACY: This is a must. I do not subscribe to the idea that debaters can run multiple, contradictory advocacies and only have to win one to win the round. I view such an approach as fundamentally unfair to the other debater (usually the aff.), who has to deal with a moving target and doesn't know what she's debating. Have one advocacy, and be consistent.

KRITIKS: If you want to run one, please a) make it applicable to the resolution rather than a kritik you could run on any topic, b) explain why the kritik is sufficient to outweigh anything in the AC, and c) clearly articulate your alternative. In general, I don't recommend running these in front of me.

EVIDENCE: I like evidence and will do my best to flow your authors' names and the substance of the cards. Try not to rely solely on cards to warrant your arguments, though; cards can do some of the work for you, but I also like to hear your own analysis. You may extend cards by the author's name, but you *must* briefly remind me of what the card says or why it's important when you do so.

ATTITUDE: I will treat you as a professional adult, and in turn, I expect you to have a professional attitude at all times. If you are rude to me or your opponent (e.g., rolling your eyes, making noises, etc.), it will cost you speaks. Feel free to ask questions when I provide a critique, but if you cross the line into rudeness ( e.g., arguing with me or yelling at me), I will stop the discussion and leave (and will also lower your speaks if I still have the ballot). That said, I am happy to provide oral critiques and/or disclosures if you want them, so feel free to approach me after the round if you have questions.

I debated for four years on both the national and local circuits, so I consider myself fairly familiar with most styles of debate. However, as a first-year-out, I wasn't really sure how I was going to judge when I first began judging this year. I envisioned myself being totally cool with everything, but after judging at a few tournaments, I have found that I actually do have some specific preferences. While I will definitely try my hardest to be open to any and all argumentation, I feel like I should let everyone know what my limitations are, so that you have the best chance of picking up my ballot.

SPEED: I definitely understand the strategic value of speed and have absolutely no problem with it. However, I am also human. I cannot process or flow information if I cannot understand it. So, some general pointers: (a). if you see me looking at you with a confused look on my face and not flowing, slow down, b). if you are foaming at the mouth, spraying spit everywhere or being otherwise ridiculous with your saliva, you are probably going too fast (it's also just disgusting and generally unpleasant), (c). please SIGNPOST, SIGNPOST, SIGNPOST. If you are going quickly, I do not have the time to find where you are on the flow if you only reference the argument. You need to reference the location on the flow, usually by pointing to author/tag names.

THEORY: I was not a theory debater. Anyone from the class of 2007 will tell you that I avoided it like the plague. I'm not particularly a huge fan of theory, but I have seen situations in which it is necessary. If you find yourself in such a situation, then you can feel free to run theory in front of me, but you should be *very* clear about how it functions in the round. I'm just not as well versed as most people, so you really need to make everything clear. If it's not necessary, then save it for another round. I won't be happy, and you won't be happy either when you receive very low speaks.

CRITICAL ARGUMENTS: I am certainly open to them, and oftentimes find them very interesting. However, I am not a Philosophy major. Accordingly, you cannot assume that I know what you're talking about when you reference some specific term from Baudrillard. You need to explain these arguments to me just like you would any other argument, which is generally just a good thing since I'd be intervening if I said you could run these without explaining them anyway.

SPEAKS: I haven't quite developed a concrete paradigm for assigning speaks yet, but I am finding that I average around a 27 right now. I will try to adjust my average according to the quality of the tournament, though. I guess I basically assign speaks based on clarity and strategy; I also take into account whether or not I think you should break at the tournament. However, I also really like it when you make my decision easier. I have no problems with you sitting down early in speech times if you're not rude about it, as long as you make sure you are actually winning and not just being cocky. Some things I deduct speaks for: new arguments, rudeness (especially in CX), unclear speed, unnecessary theory, etc.

Generally, I vote off any argument that is extended and impacted to whatever standard (criterion, burden, whatever, etc.) is also extended in the round. The above are just some of my preferences and, like I said, failure to adhere to them won't result in an automatic loss, but I feel as though being aware of them will certainly increase your chances of a win. I am also told that I give harsh oral critiques, but please be aware that I only do so because I really liked them when I was a debater and I think constructive criticism is just a good thing in general. But just because I said your 2AR was bad doesn't mean I think you're a bad human. Overall, though, just have fun. I'm still here because I absolutely love debate, and I want you guys to love it, too.

Intelligent, well-reasoned and supported arguments which allow for fair debate.

Intelligent, well-reasoned and supported arguments which allow for fair debate.

Intelligent, well-reasoned and supported arguments which allow for fair debate.

Experience: Four years of high school debate, four years of congress, four years of speech. I coached while I was in college for four years. I now coach/direct my own program in Massachusetts. I also teach business persuasion to a group of people who were never taught how to communicate. [That's for your benefit, since I think this activity is to teach you how to use skills in the "real world"]

Some people believe that I am more prone to judge on certain things than others. I have a few rules that make it easier for me to let you decide who wins my ballot. Otherwise you leave it up to me and that's no fun for anyone involved. For those that only care about two things when asking for a paradigm: NO, I CAN NOT HANDLE SPEED and I am NOT a fan of theory. My belief about theory is that if there is a real violation knock yourself out. If you are using theory as a tactic to confuse your opponent you will most likely succeed in only confusing me. I would rather hear a debate on topic specific literature, material, evidence and arguments. It is predictable and interesting to me. I think the reason why people spend five days picking out topics is to discuss a variety of different ideas rather than have the same theory debate over and over again. ** If you care about anything else it is outlined below. **

1. Don't be rude. I can't stand rudeness in debate regardless of whether you think you are "just being funny." That doesn't mean that humor isn't allowed . . . but degrading your opponent or me only ruins your ability to get high speaker points and a win. I don't waiver on this whatsoever so if you think your behavior is even questionable please don't do it because you will only anger me. An angry Indian doesn't make for a good judge.

2. If you can't speak clearly don't speak fast. Some people believe they can speak quickly and that's a great skill for you. However, if you speak quickly at the expense of being clear I can't say I will be inclined to vote for you. If you have even a minor question about whether you CAN speak clearly just slow down - it's easier for all of us.

3. Link to a standard. I am huge fan of criteria. However, some people don't use it as the mechanism that can either filter out arguments or link arguments to the topic. I think it can be used for both. So use criteria to evaluate the claims your opponent is making. If you decide to opt out of this then understand that arguments can't effectively be weighed until you select a mechanism to weigh them. Whether that comes in the form of standards, burdens whatever -- agree on something before you disagree on everything.

4. Theory arguments: they aren't my friend. I like arguments that are on topic. If you would like to make arguments about how your opponent is "violating T" then PLEASE make sure that they really ARE. I am willing to go so far as to say that I WILL INTERVENE AGAINST YOU if you use this as a tactic to "confuse" your opponent or to just put an "interesting" or "new" argument on the flow. It doesn't make sense to me. If they are making an honest effort to be on topic I think you should engage the discussion rather than avoid it.

5. Speaker points are based on speaking. I do not give speaker points based on you "winning" or "defeating" your opponent. They are based on persuasion, eye contact and delivery. The better you are the higher they go! Please remember there are only two people communicating in the round: you and your opponent. Since I only play the role of the listener it is your job and your job ALONE to make sure I get it. If you think I don't [get it] then a very reasonable argument to make is, "If you don't get it don't vote for it."

6. Strategy not trickery: I am not a fan of people who use arguments to be "sneaky" . . .. that doesn't mean I don't appreciate a good strategy in the round. While this IS a game it is meant to show the different levels of argumentation not your ability to "win at all costs." For example, extending one line out of your framework to "preclude" an entire case does not make for good debate in my mind. Cases that "preclude" the opponent's arguments don't make any sense to me at all either. Please engage the debate. I have no problem saying things like, "I didn't understand that argument the way you explained it." And I won't vote for things that I don't understand. I also have a problem with things being extremely confusing in the beginning of rounds and then "suddenly becoming clear" in the last speech. While I may not vote against you for trying to confuse us all it will irritate me. Irritated Indians just make the world an unhappy place.

7. HAVE FUN: Please remember that this IS a game . . . it is supposed to be FUN. If you aren't having fun or if you aren't doing it because it IS fun . . you really shouldn't be doing it. This is often reflected in your attitude pre, during and post round.

8. FRAMEWORK: While I like a good framework debate as much as the next person I really don't like debates that are ONLY framework. Someone who "won" their framework didn't prove the resolution "true or false" and accordingly you didn't really win the round. You merely told us how we evaluate who won the round. Make sure that in addition to debating the framework you extend arguments that link to the framework.

9. JARGON: Please do not use words like "extend" or "outweigh" if you don't plan on actually doing those things. For example, "I outweigh on magnitude or probability" may sound nice but it doesn't really mean anything to me. Please be specific in what you believe the impacts and results of the round are. I also, for the record, believe that specific, real world and TOPICAL examples help create a "picture" of what your world looks like.

10. CRYSTALLIZATION: I like it. Please do it. It begins with clarifying the standard and then selecting arguments which you think link to that standard. "Crystallizing down the flow" rarely ever has the same effect. A speech, in my mind, gets shorter for a reason - less information is supposed to be in each speech. As a side note, I like an order of operations. By that I mean, if everyone does what they are supposed to why do I evaluate some arguments before others? What is the order in which I evaluate arguments? Just like you do in math: multiply first and then the rest :)

These are the keys to my ballot. Please use them if you can! If you have questions it is better to ask them rather than try and debate assuming you know the answer. Good LUCK!

I prefer a more traditional debate in general, but am willing to listen to anything as long as it is clear. I won't make an effort to understand something if I feel like it is muddled. I put a huge emphasis on standards resolution. I am experienced in LD and Public Forum, having competed nationally in LD and winning the PF TOC in 2007. I like theory and evidence as long as I don't feel like you are power-tagging. I generally don't like statistics.

Intelligent, well-reasoned and supported arguments which allow for fair debate.

I am a fairly experienced local LD parent judge. A traditional, resolutional approach to the topic is your best bet. Speed, by the way, is not an issue, so if you are inclined to babble like a meth addict, you should be okay.

I'm ok with speed, off-cases, theory, and big words. It is very important to weigh all impacts clearly and to tell a coherent story in order for me to make a predictable decision. By default I'll evaluate pre-standard arguments before the standards.

As a caveat, I have a high threshold for pre-standard arguments, because they tend to be sufficient. This means (a) I must be able to understand the argument and (2) they must be very cleanly extended.

I'm also pretty easy with speaker points unless the situation dictates otherwise.

Intelligent, well-reasoned and supported arguments which allow for fair debate.

I expect a round to have solid logical arguments that are based in theory and philosophy. I try not to allow bias into the round and will vote for the argument that flows logically and is defended well. Evidence is ok, but Lincoln Douglas debate is a THEORY based debate. The term "card" is a policy term and does not score points with me.

Speed should not be the focus of a debate. Your speeches and refutations should be more eloquent and powerful then fast. We are trying to teach you to be great thinkers, researchers, and speakers and we are NOT teaching you to be auctioneers. I can handle glowing speed, but speed does not score you points.

I debated for Arthur L Johnson HS in New Jersey for four years and competed both locally and nationally. I attended four debate camps over my debate career and have taught at a couple others. I currently coach debaters, of many differing styles, all around the country.

That said, there is not a single thing you can do in a round that I won't be able to understand/judge.

HOWEVER - there are a few pet peeves.

1. Theory - similar to how Jacob Levi and Max Stevens believe theory ought to be used, I will not vote for a theory argument that does not site a legitimate violation. This means a couple things for you. First, winning the theory argument won't automatically win you the round. Theory is, in actuality, a call for intervention. I believe that we should debate the issues of the topic, whether that means the assumptions of it or the "normal" arguments associated with it. If you are asking for a ballot for any other reason than winning those types of arguments, then there needs to be a good reason for it. I will tell you outright - if I don't find the violation to be legitimate, then I won't vote for the theory argument.
2. Warrants - I like well warranted arguments and admittantly have a slight bias towards good empirical evidence. I would prefer that debaters take the time to weigh the competing types of evidence to explain why I should vote on way or the other. However, in the event that an analytical and an empirical warrant are both dropped, I have a strong propensity towards "buying" the empirical one. *Hint: Use empirical evidence in front of me*
3. Evidence - I expect all evidence to be fully sourced. If I ask for something after the round, I'd like the title of the work/literature, author, and the author's credentials. Also, if I find ellipsis within the evidence, I would much appreciate that you have the entire "card" (quotation) with you. If the latter is not available, then you can expect a drop in speaker points. A lack of title and/or author, would also merit a drop in speaker points.
4. Speed - I don't care how fast you go. Be clear. HOWEVER - speed with bad word economy or strategy will yield a LARGE (EMPHASIS ON LARGE) deduction in speaker points. Speed is not impressive; though, good, comprehensive debate is.
5. Kritiks - Don't kritik the meaning of language. I won't listen to it. I don't care what else you do.
6. Speaker points - They are subjective. I give speaker points based on the quality of the tournament pool and the overall performance of the debater. The short story is that I will ALWAYS reward topical debaters that use good strategy. Oh, and be nice to each other.
7. Bad Strategy - I'm not going to spend the time here to explain what I think good strategy is, but I will tell you what it isn't. Speed for the purpose of confusion is bad strategy. Confusing wording for the purpose of making an argument sound "smarter" or confusing your opponent is also bad strategy.

also - I try to be nice

Have fun (always have fun)!

That's all.

My name is Jimi Morales and I debated for 4 years at Alief-Elsik High School in Houston, Texas. I am currently a sophomore at Williams College where I study Political Science. I try my best to minimize bias when judging rounds, but I do have a preference for certain things.

Clearly articulated arguments with an easy flow of logic. This may mean that you need to adjust your speed so that I can flow, because my handwriting is not very fast. I prefer speed for the sake of depth as opposed to breadth of argumentation. I will say clear once, but after that its your responsibility to slow down or you risk speaks and/or me not writing down your arguments which means they won't be evaluated.

Avoiding Theory. I will vote on theory, but only when it is actually checking abuse. If you run theory, it needs to be in response to something that has inhibited your ability to debate. This means that theory and 5 blocks to the case is probably a bit inconsistent, and it will be hard for you to convince me to vote for the abuse. Running theory as a time suck will cost you speaks, so don't kick it unless you have a really good reason for it.

I really like it when debaters agree on one standard so that I can evaluate all their arguments within its context. If this is not possible for whatever reason, I will either weigh the two standards presented and either pick one, or weigh them against each other depending on what you as debaters tell me to do. You don't need a standard to win a round, but if you are going to run an alternative form of argumentation, then please explain how I am supposed to evaluate it, both intrinsically and in comparison to whatever your opponent is running.

Please let me know if you have any specific questions.

After judging Wake (my first tournament in nearly 3 years) and after some thoughtful reflection I've decided how I want to adjudicate rounds. Instead of something drawn out that you wont read, I've kept it short:

1. I see the resolution as the starting point, rather than the endpoint, of the debate. I do not believe the resolution to be a question of truth/false, but rather one of desireability. Unless convinced otherwise in round, I will view the rounds in an offense/defense approach and endorse the side whose world is more desireable.

Yes, this means your McIntyre evidence will probably not win you anything unless impacted to something other than "the resolution is incomprehensible and cant be true!"

If you read nothing else:I will vote affirmative if it is more desireable for everyone to do what the affirmative says. I will vote negative if it is more desireable for everyone to do what the negative says.

2. I do not care for the value criterion. I think it is obnoxious and attempts to silence/preclude important arguments in the name of strategy. I also think it creates lazy debating as "impact analysis" is just repeating "it links to the VC" over and over. I would prefer you did not have one and did the impact calculous/weighing for individual arguments. However, I realize this is not a particularly popular opinion and I dont think you should rewrite a case for just me. In that regard, just know that

If you win the VC it does not mean I will ignore other arguments. If you win that the standard should be "protection of innocents" and the negative impacts out his genocide argument and makes it better than yours, I will vote for it. If this deeply concerns you then I urge you to strike me.

3. I find theory to be my favorite argument and because of that probably vote on it more than I should. However, run it poorly and it will just waste your speaking time. If you want to run theory in front of me, do it in the following fashion

A. Interpretation B. Violation C. Reasons to prefer/vote

Thats about it. I give pretty good speaker points though!

Intelligent, well-reasoned and supported arguments which allow for fair debate.

Intelligent, well-reasoned and supported arguments which allow for fair debate.

I debated locally for four years, nationally for two. Being a first-year-out is a little weird. I'm stuck halfway between the judge I wanted judges to be as a debater and the judge that I am as a real person (and moreover an overworked college student). I try my best to allow debaters the most leeway so that they can debate how they are most comfortable, but I've also put up boundaries that I swore to myself as a debater I'd never have as a judge. So here's the paradigm:

On argumentation: I'm not a fan of blips, and I won't fill in the blanks for you as much as you might want me to. I will under most circumstances vote off of arguments that are written on the end-side of my flow and are clearly linked to whatever standard you provide me with. Weighing the arguments at the end of the flow is also important, as it shows me that you know how separate arguments and impacts interact with each other. As a debater, I strongly disliked theory, and never really used it myself, but did see and debate in rounds where it may have been necessary/was employed. To me, the most convincing debater is the one that gives me substantive arguments and saves theory for the times it's most warranted, rather than using it as a round-by-round tactic. Critical arguments are certainly okay, as long you tell me exactly how the arguments you give me function in terms of the round, and you don't expect me to know exactly what the ten Zizek cards you just spat at me mean.

On speed: My freshman and sophomore years were completely dedicated to my local Northern Virginia circuit, and accordingly, speed isn't embedded in my brain as much as it is for some debaters who have been debating nationally since the age of fourteen. However, as a junior/senior debating on the national circuit, I definitely learned the strategic importance of speed and assuredly started using it myself. I'm not fragile or easily overwhelmed, but I am human. So, speed is absolutely fine, as long as you are being very clear about where I'm supposed to be flowing the arguments you give me, and aren't giving me blippy extensions. If I'm looking at you like you're castrating a pig, something's wrong.

As a person, I try to be a nice guy, but as a judge, it's sometimes difficult. So stick to what you know, but try your best to give me what I want, and I will probably take away from speaks if you don't. Have fun (because that's why we all joined debate, right?), don't be rude, and things will work out. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Good luck!

Intelligent, well-reasoned and supported arguments which allow for fair debate.

Intelligent, well-reasoned and supported arguments which allow for fair debate.

Hi, I'm Dave.

I like a debate over fewer well-developed issues as opposed to one over many underdeveloped points.

Go slow.

Develop a framework -- win your criterion or extend it or something else as standard for the round. That's where I look first.

Extend your case -- impact your offense back to the standard. That's where I look second.

Then weigh your offense in comparison to your opponent's. That's where I look third if both sides have claims to standards and both have extended offense.

If none of this gets done (standards, offense, weighing), I'll probably just intervene and vote on the most compelling argument on the flow.

Be rhetorical and charming and grab those speaker points! I'm always looking for excuses to give 30's.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, ask me before the round and we'll talk about it!

If you have any questions about the round, ask me after my ballots are in and we'll talk about it!

I'll default to evaluating the round through a criterion. I'm open to voting on almost anything, including "pre-standards" issues, and don't mind speed. My preferences include:

1. If you want me to vote on something before the standard, tell me why. The sillier the argument, the more clearly you need to win it if you want me to vote on that issue. This is really just a check against blip spreads. If you devote a lot of time to an independent issue, I'll evaluate it regardless of my opinion.

2. If your negating and put a burden on the AC, I won't vote on it unless you tell me why the affirmative isn't meeting the burden. I don't think aff's have to prove every assumption of the resolution unless an assumption is contested. For example, instead of claiming that military force wouldn't be justified if alternatives exist, show me an alternative. This applies to the criterial debate as well. Don't just say "the AC criterion isn't sufficient for justice." Show me an element of justice they lack or violate.

3. Negating is easy. If a round is a toss up (e.g. - both debaters have an argument linked to the standard, neither weighed comparatively), I'll err affirmative. If you blip spread and I still have to intervene to vote for either side, you'll probably lose.

4. My favorite 2NRs and 2ARs are generally not very fast. Have a clear idea of what is actually important in the round, and spend your time walking me through each step of my decision-making calculus. Extend warrants and weigh your arguments comparatively.

5. I'm not a huge fan of theory. If you run it, please make sure there is actual abuse. Structuring your argument would be appreciated.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask.

Be sure to explain why an extension of an argument is relevant. Make it very clear where you are on the flow. Stay away from forcing a "yes or no" format on your opponent during cross-ex. Feel free to speak fast as long as you are speaking clearly.

I did debate for Syosset high school between 2002-2006 and competed on both the local and national circuit.

I guess I am a flow judge by most definitions. I'll write down all the arguments that I can hear (that implies that you are a clear speaker and don't speak faster than your words) and extend, drop…whatever you want me to do with them. Other than that I have no preferences on types of argumentation as long as its realistic in terms of it being debatable. By this I mean, I'll give you the win if you win some abstract theory argument but I would gladly give you the win if you win a more debatable argument. Regardless, you'll still get the win.

Other than that, my biggest issue is when people go new in the 2AR/NR. I hate when that happens and that will be reflected in your speaker points.

My speaker points range from a 26 to a 30, underneath that and even you'll know why your speaks are so low.

2 -- 4 -- 6 -- 8, why do we love debate? 3 -- 5 -- 7 -- 9, it's because we're so fine. As you can tell, I not only have I debated LD for the Bronx High School of Science (and no I have never gotten shot at as many of you might think...), I was the one and only debate cheerleader for the team. My paradigm is very similar to my personality. The best way to find out and understand my paradigm is to just talk to me -- I don't bite... so that makes me somewhat approachable. But if you don't... this is what I'm looking for: As far as positions and jargon goes, I've been debating for too long, so I know the ropes and jargon. I've always been somewhat of a traditionalist, but I'm open to pretty much everything and anything (theory, kritiks, etc). I'm fine with whatever you send my way, but just keep in mind the more entertaining the better. I can handle speed but not at the sake of clarity and a major headache. If you are going to spread out your opponent, make sure that 1. you don't spit all over me, that's just gross, 2. you are clear, 3. you're giving your opponent a chance (i.e. varsity debaters please don't spread out the novices). "This is LD not policy" clich? yes I know, but keep that in mind when you give a speech. Values are important, be sure to explain how your value premise and value criterion link to one another and definitely link back to them throughout the round. Organization is always a good thing. Each argument should have a claim, warrant, and impact. Please weigh. Tell me why you win the round, what arguments did you extend, turn, etc. I'm a happy go lucky kind of girl, so I don't want to see any thing dirty going on - no lying, backstabbing, violence, sliming, or anything of that nature. Most importantly show me that you're having fun! That's what debate should be about, not just winning, but having a great time! Smile, relax and most importantly HAVE FUN!!! :-) I will do my best to answer any further questions.

So my paradigm is fairly straightforward: debate in whatever style you're most comfortable with and I should be able to understand what is going on and follow the round. I believe that if you're good, then anyone should be able to follow you. That being said, I was on the debate team at the Hockaday School in Dallas for four years and traveled a great deal on the national/TOC circuit. I have terrible handwriting so while I can follow quick rounds speak rapidly at your own risk. I personally dislike theory debates unless they are called for (that is, there is actual and clear abuse in round), don't like discourse arguments unless they are sincere (that is, they are very developed and aren't being used as a time-suck), and tend to prefer non-critical argumentation. If I don't understand the argument, I won't vote on it. I also don't like voting off of blippy extensions. Be sure to give a good decision calculus and you'll be fine. I won't yell clear in a round if I feel that the debater is being unclear since I think that's unfair to your opponent. And most importantly, be nice and have fun!

I am as much of a tabula rasa judge as I can be. I can handle any debating style you choose to use, from "dueling oratories" to the spread and everything in between. I try to avoid intervention as much as I can. I'd like to be able to say that if you win the round, I'll pick you up, but of course who 'wins' the round is subject to interpretation. Therefore, some guidelines need to be set up as to how I make my decision.

HOW TO PICK UP MY BALLOT

1. Impact. Too often I find myself staring at the flow with a bunch of arguments on both sides that aren't impacted well or simply ignore the actual argumentation that is happening on the flow. Put simply, tell me which of your arguments are important and why. Do it before the 2AR. I want to hear that the extension of your contention 2 sub A is the most important argument in the round right when you extend it. This puts perspective on all the rest of the argumentation in the round.
2. Value/Criterion. The roles of the value and criterion is an important one in debate, and there are differing schools of thought on what exactly those roles are. Let me give you my perspective. The value premise is the big, overarching argument the resolution is trying to achieve. Ultimately it should be achievable to both the aff and the neg. I think the best debates come when both sides agree on a value and argue about who achieves it better. The criterion, however, is something that can be a little biased toward your side of the resolution, because it is the magnifying glass through which you as the affirmative or as the negative look at the value. It is your perspective, so to speak. Therefore, all of your argumentation ought to link to your value through your criterion. Moreover, your criterion becomes the most important thing in your case because without it, you can't put any perspective on any of your argumentation.
3. Links. Links are very important to the structure of any debate round. Not only does your case have to be well linked to your criterion, but your rebuttals do as well, obviously. I just don't give as much weight to arguments that aren't well linked or impacted as I do to those that are.
4. Harms/weighing. To be honest, nearly every debate that I've participated in boils down to a harms debate in the end, so I think it's important for me to talk about. I think that in the end, the impacting and weighing of the harms is more important than the harms itself. If I am presented with fifty harms that aren't well impacted, or just don't matter to me all that much versus one harm that is hugely impacted and is very important to the round, I'll vote for the side that impacts and weighs harms well every time. Thus, sometimes it may seem like you are winning the harms debate, and it may even seem like you are winning the flow, but if you don't impact well and don't weigh the harms out for me, you really aren't winning the round.

HOW TO DROP MY BALLOT

There really aren't many rules I have as far as dropping people on face are concerned. In fact, I never ever drop people just because I don't like their style, or argumentation, or whatever. I vote on argumentation in round; I vote on impacts. Unethical behavior in rounds can be dealt with with speaker points. However, the W is something that really ought not be influenced by people just kind of going "I don't like your style, you lose..."

SPEAKER POINTS

HOW TO GET GOOD SPEAKS

I try to give speaker points out the way teachers would give out grades, using the following formula:

30=A+
29=A
28=B
27=C
26=D
25=F

I think that this method of giving out speaker points is a good one, it has done well for me in that when I look at the tab sheets after a tournament, I seem to be right in the middle of the road for speaks. I am neither a point scrooge nor a point fairy.

Speaker points are, in my view, a measure of how persuasive you are to me. This justifies low point wins and things like that. If you win the flow but just spread your opponent and things like that, you will get the W from me, but because you weren't very persuasive, you won't get good speaks. Maybe you'll get a 27. Maybe lower. Conversely, if you just lose the argumentation but you still spoke very persuasively, you will lose the round but will get good speaks. Speaker points ought to be totally separate from the W/L column in debate. Most of the time, they coincide. Sometimes, they ought not.

HOW TO DROP SPEAKS

Unethical behavior is something I frown severely upon in a round. Debate is, after all, an educational activity and a school one as well. Instead of trying to win all the time, sometimes we ought to step back and look at exactly what kinds of things we are doing in order to pick up the coveted W. Here are a few examples of unethical behavior in rounds:

1. Lying. (Saying that your opponent dropped something when they clearly did not.)
2. Swearing. (On past topics, people actually use hate words as an example of hate speech.)
3. Belligerency in Cross-ex.

There are a lot of other things, but those really are my pet peeves.

I think ethical behavior is extremely important in a debate round, and as such will punish unethical behavior with an automatic two point deduction in speaks.

Don't misinterpret me, I don't want you coming into the round fearing for your life or anything. It is rare, if ever, that I actually am forced to deduct speaks. But if you're thinking of dropping the n-bomb in a round that I'm judging, think again.

DISCLOSURE AND ORAL CRITIQUES

Debate is an educational activity, and I think that everyone should do all in their power to maximize that education. Also, during a tournament, all competitors want to know what they need to improve on or what they need to emphasize more in order for them to do well in the tournament they are competing in. For both of these reasons, I disclose my decision after every debate round unless one of the debaters requests me not to. This is because I simply am incapable of giving a good oral critique without disclosing. Too often debaters get orals that consist of "Good job, good rebuttal..." and nothing more. That just is not educational. Instead, what needs to be done is an overview of the argumentation in round, an evaluation of what arguments mattered in my decision and why, and ultimately a RFD that both debaters understand. This doesn't happen on the ballot. Sometimes, especially with my messy handwriting, debaters can't even read the ballot, much less glean educational material from it.

To sum it all up, I consider myself to be a pretty good judge. I am as tabula rosa as you can get, and I give pretty good speaks. I recognize debate as the educational activity that it is, and ultimately, I (hopefully) pick up the right person. I look forward to seeing you all at tournaments in the future.

I've been judging debate rounds since 2001. I flow best at lower speeds, I flow at moderate speed somewhat less thoroughly, and will only catch the gist of your case if you read at lightning speed. If an argument is not on my flow, it didn't happen. I am not a fan of theory for theory's sake. I will only listen to theory if your opponent is abusive to the point of ruining the balance, fairness, or educational value of the round. I'm certainly open to well argued and topic-specific kritiks and off-cases, but generally, I prefer substantive, traditional, values driven debate. I like interesting, unique arguments. Speaker points will be high in a round in which I am entertained and engaged by articulate, clear, thoughtful, polite, and strategic debaters.

Background
Competitor: 8 years, (Ankeny High School, UNI, Lewis and Clark College) LD, Policy, Parli
Coach: 3.5 years (Truman State, Texas Tech, Acton-Boxborough) Parli, LD

Argumentation
Just about anything should be fine with me. Offence is critical at the end of the round for either side, however. I tend to default to a policy maker paradigm unless you put me in a different one, so I'll vote for the advocacy that seems more like to make the world a comparatively better place. Use your time at the end of the debate to explain to me not just what argument(s) you win, but why it matters that you win those arguments. If you do not weigh the round out for me I'll be forced to do it myself, and that rarely ends the way people want. Any other questions, just ask at the start of the round, I'll be happy to pontificate at you.

Delivery
I've been out of the high school LD scene for a bit, so I'm probably not entirely up on contemporary jargon, so make sure to define any unusual terminology you use the first time. I'm fine with speed, though a bit out of practice flowing it, as long as you start slow and build and speak clearly you should be fine. I'll yell clear if needed. I don't really stand on formality much, and content is more important to me than presentation. That said, effective persuasion does have an effect on everyone whether we intend to acknowledge it or not, so talking pretty probably won't hurt. Also, don't be a jerk. Aggressiveness is fine and good, but disrespecting your opponent really doesn't make you look any better, it just makes you look insecure or arrogant, neither of which tends to help your credibility.