Event Judging at State

How many years have you judged debate?

How many rounds have you judged this season

Which of the following statements best describes your feelings about delivery in

Please add any comments about delivery style and rate below

Which of the following statements best describes how you make decisions in a debate round.

As long as debaters are clear, I don't care how fast they go

My decision is based heavily on the arguments in the round, but delivery is taken into account.

Debate Background: 4 years of debate in high school, two in college, and assistant coach at Gonzaga Prep High School. Don't judge me too harshly for any typos, I pounded this out pretty fast.

Generally, I'll default to a policymaking framework with a mainstream view of offense defense unless told otherwise. I might be a bit more willing than others to think there is zero risk of an advantage/disadvantage.

K’s- Personally, my debate style slants towards the "policy" end of things, but I will do my best to give all critical arguments a fair shake. I'll do the same for framework, however, so don't discount it. Additionally, while I'm fine with listening to the merits of whatever debate style you choose to embrace, answering all of the other teams arguments still needs to be done, and preferably you make it somewhat clear to me when you are doing so. The failure to do this introduces an amount of subjectivity into the decision beyond what I think should be present- the way judges evaluate debates should be relatively homogeneous. Don't feel like you suddenly have to break down the debate into the line-by-line, though- casual verbal indicators should be fine.
My familiarity with your argument can be dodgy at times- some areas I know a decent bit about, others not so much. Assuming ignorance might be best.

T- I learned debate in an area where T was a rather big deal, and it is underutilized as a strategy. If going for T, what will be most persuasive for me is providing a full view of what the topic will look like under your definition- preferably including a list of common cases that would be included/excluded.
I'll default to competing interpretations, but can be persuaded by a strong reasonability argument.
Standards like "framer's intent" or "intent to define" don't really mean a lot to me unless linked to Fairness/Education.

CP/Theory-

- A counterplan w/ 3 planks that can be individually severed are three conditional counterplans the affirmative can answer them as such. I don't have any pre-set cut off for what number of conditional arguments is okay- I think it varies round to round.
- The solvency deficit needs to be "qualified" not so much "quantified"- Pegging percent of the aff the neg solves is impossible, and instead the solvency deficit should be described as specific advantages or solvency mechanisms the negative doesn't access. The impacts to those things then need to be weighed against the net benefit.
- Friendly reminder to not speed through your theory blocks
- Unless you put voters on them, theory is a reason to reject the argument. In order to reject the team (beyond conditionality bad), an articulation of how what the other team did changed your strategy in the round is required, unless you win the line by line on the theory very handily.

Andrew Croneberger

University High School

Faster than conversational delivery is fine, but debaters should attempt to be persuasive and keep their pace moderate

Fast conversational is fine for me (~200-250 wpm), I will have a hard time keeping up with speed after that. You won't really reap any benefits past this range anyway as I'll start losing bits and pieces on the flow.

Style is mostly a non-issue for me. As long as it's coherent I'll be okay with it. Please try to avoid using a lot of jargon as I haven't kept up with it and it'll might take me longer to figure out what you're trying to say.

Policymaker.

I really enjoy a solid, straightforward case debate with a focus on advantages and case specific DA's.

Counterplans are fine. If you try to run a PIC I wish you the best of luck as I have never, ever understood PIC's.

I'm willing to vote on T and think a good topicality debate can be quite entertaining to watch but as the negative, you better be really going for it if you want me to vote on it. Otherwise it probably won't matter on the flow. In other words, if you're not going mainly for T it's probably not worth your time to run it.

Kritiks: No. Don't do it, please. I haven't kept up with the literature, kritiks can get incredibly muddy and you run the risk of me misunderstanding your kritik.

Theory: You should probably avoid theory/framework debates as I have a really difficult time evaluating these in the context of a case debate and I think evaluating a theoretical issue in debate takes much longer and requires more discussion than we could ever get in a round in real life.

Depth >>> breadth. I really like it when a team figures out what they have going for them and just goes for it. So figure out what you're really winning on and go for it. With a nice impact calculus at the end you just might warm over my ice cold judging heart (and also win the ballot).

Keep it civil.

Lincoln Douglas Debate

As long as debaters are clear, I don't care how fast they go

I want to be able to understand you, so please be clear. I don't want the fastest national circuit style delivery, but in general just listen for cues about clarity.

Mount Vernon High School

Lincoln Douglas Debate

As long as debaters are clear, I don't care how fast they go

Lincoln Douglas Debate

I prefer conversational delivery that focuses on persuasion

Lincoln Douglas Debate

As long as debaters are clear, I don't care how fast they go

I debated policy all through high school, so speed is fine as long as you are clear.

I would characterize myself as a tabs judge in the sense that I will never intervene. I will vote on the arguments in the round only, and the skill with which they are presented. If something is important and/or a voter, tell me and back it up with solid argumentation. I am fine with any type of argument, but this is the first time this year that I have judged. Assume I posses a great deal of debate knowledge, but limited specific topical knowledge. Have fun!

Tahoma Senior HS

Lincoln Douglas Debate

Faster than conversational delivery is fine, but debaters should attempt to be persuasive and keep their pace moderate

Yes, there is a limit to how fast you can go (human ears can only hear so much)

Talk to me in round for more clarification about anything. I'm not going to force you to change all your debate stylistic preferences--state is your thing and debate is your activity. Congratulations all on qualifying.

Lincoln Douglas Debate

As long as debaters are clear, I don't care how fast they go

Lincoln Douglas Debate

As long as debaters are clear, I don't care how fast they go

I prefer to work off the flow, in a substantive way. I don't think mass argumentation that is quickly and poorly developed holds as much weight as focused argumentation. Focus the round for me and then tell me why specific issues are important not just that you are winning more issues.

I'm fine with speed and theoretical argumentation, although I feel that theory requires more backing and a clear presentation of violation before it is valid.

Clarity is key

Faster than conversational delivery is fine, but debaters should attempt to be persuasive and keep their pace moderate

Speed is earned. If you're good enough, speed is fine in Policy. If not, slow down till your diction improves. Tags will help, but speeding through your ev so I can't process it means I have to either accept your assertions about it or ignore it. Or, worse for you, believe what the *other* side asserts. I may ask for cards, to confirm my understanding of the ev - not to reconstruct your arguments. If I didn't catch it on the flow, you're out of luck.

I. WILL. NOT. SAY. CLEAR. Pay attention to your environment.

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Mohn%2C+Susan

So, background, FWIW
Competed for Berkeley High in the mid-70's (Policy, Extemp, Impromptu, DI, HI)
Competed for Whitman in the late 70's (IE's: Extemp, DI, HI, Reader's Theatre)
Coached Lakeridge HS in Lake Oswego, jr. high in 1989 (took team to nationals in policy)
Coached University of Indiana, Bloomington from 1990-1993 (team rose from 48th to 6th in first 2 years, from 6th to 5th in year 3) - NDT teams to nats all 3 years.
Coached with Glacier Peak in Snohomish, WA - assisted 2 years, head coached one year 2010-11; took 1 student to nationals 2011.
Coaching Interlake HS in Bellevue WA. Launched team in 2011. Took 5 students to State year 1; Will take 10+ 2nd year. 2011-2013.

I judge 4 types of debate: Policy, LD, PF and Congress.

What I tend to judge on

Policy:
Largely a tab judge, in general, if you run an argument, and the other side doesn't take it up, you'll win it - but things like vaporizing the moon have a lower bar to being blown over then arguments closer to "real world". I'm also, as you can see from above, an Old School judge, so while I'm fine with most types of arguments including K, you need to be able to explain it in your own words and connect anything you run to the round we're actually in.

I like Case arguments more than K and as much as K is cool, you still need to deal with the old stock issues at some level (sig, harm, inherency). I will vote on T, provided it's argued well and not just tossed out and provided it's not so generic that all AFF cases fail equally.
While I enjoy a good K, I tend to think most Kritics/Critical Arguments are unnecessarily convoluted and poorly understood. Most don't pass the sniff test. If it's run against you and you think it's silly, I likely will too and will be thrilled to hear you say so out loud. If you like to run them and they're both valid and have specific links to the round, then be able to explain them in your own words as well and I'll be very pleased to hear them under those conditions.
I tend to vote the flow, so clash is important. At SOME point, neg will need to attack the aff case, not just work "off". Flat out lies (Climate Change is all fake, for instance) aren't going to fly in a round even with (biased) ev.

LD:
Please remember this is not "one-man policy" - it's a different animal and I want you to treat it as such. Value and Criterion actually matter and spread debate doesn't, in my view, serve LD as well as it does Policy. I expect a VC that measures your Value and Contentions that support the Value as well.

PF:
Please remember this is Public Forum. The point of this event is "common man" debate. I shouldn't have to pull out my Policy lingo to keep up, arguments like "hedge" aren't likely to fly in a PF round (unless VERY well explained with NO lingo) and this is NOT a speed game.

Congress:
This is a form of debate - and I expect evidence, analytical arguments and questions that lead somewhere.

In general:
Speed is earned. If you're good enough, speed is fine in Policy. If not, slow down till your diction improves. Tags will help, but speeding through your ev so I can't process it means I have to either accept your assertions about it or ignore it. Or, worse for you, believe what the *other* side asserts. I may ask for cards, to confirm my understanding of the ev - not to reconstruct your arguments. If I didn't catch it on the flow, you're out of luck.

The Bear Creek School

Lincoln Douglas Debate

I prefer conversational delivery that focuses on persuasion

1) Decorum is a voter, treat one another with respect.
2) I expect elegant debate.
3) I will vote for the side that makes it easiest for me to vote for his or her side. I choose the path of least resistance. the more work you make me do on your behalf, the less likely I will be to vote for you. Make it clear why you have won the round, pointing to specific in-round events and arguments that justify a vote for your side.

Capital High School

Lincoln Douglas Debate

As long as debaters are clear, I don't care how fast they go

I am wary about choosing this descriptor, as I find that students often have vastly divergent views about what constitutes clear delivery. Here's my advice: record yourself reading your case. Slow it down to half speed. If you can't understand yourself, you're going too fast.

For your benefit, I'll say "Clear!" ONCE during the round. Ignore it at your peril.

Some sort of middle ground here. I can't weigh a position that I can't understand because of unclear delivery. And, as a human being, I am likely to be more swayed by expressive delivery than I'd like to admit. No one is a perfectly logical creature. (RIP Spock!)

Walla Walla High School

Lincoln Douglas Debate

As long as debaters are clear, I don't care how fast they go

This is my 7th year coaching LD debate. I am familiar with the topics when I judge but not always prepared for unusual arguments, so be sure to clearly explain link/impacts if the argument is outside the norm.

I'm comfortable with speed. I will say "speed" if you are speaking too fast for me to flow or understand.

I am relatively new to theory arguments, so you should probably slow down on them and make sure they are not too blippy. I'm like logic and consider debate to be a game so theory (especially T) is interesting to me but I don’t like to punish people for their arguments. I prefer it if theory impacts make sense and are logical in the round - such as drop the argument, as opposed to drop the debater. However, that is only my default position. If you argue drop the debater well in the round, I will vote on it.

I don't like sexist or racist arguments and I won't vote for them if they are obviously offensive, even if they are dropped.

I try not to make arguments for debaters. Your arguments should be well supported and explained. It is your job to explain the argument in a way that is straight forward and clear. In particular, I do not like extremely odd value/criteria debates where the evidence seems designed to confuse, not explain. And if you are not able to clearly explain your value/criteria/k in c-x, I will not vote for it. I value debaters understanding each other's arguments and responding to them effectively - I see a lot of discussion about disclosure as it applies to evidence but not much about honest disclosure in c-x.

I do convey my opinion on arguments through facial expressions - so if I think you are spending too much time on an argument I will show that visually and if I like an argument I will show that visually.

I will vote on value and criteria arguments, but I love case arguments that have clear impacts that relate back to value and criteria. I like impacts to be identified and weighed in final arguments. I'm much more a policy judge than a traditional LD judge.

I do view debate as a game, I'm open to most arguments, I think debate is fluid and debaters are allowed to define and create the game as they go so long as their support for doing so is strong and valid. However, I don't like rudeness. Overwhelmingly for me that is defined as a debater responding to another debater (or more rarely, me) in a condescending manner. But rudeness only affects your speaker points.

I like clear, consice, fast, organized debating. I think I generally give higher speaker points (I feel bad when I go below a 27 and will usually give a 30 at least once a tournament). I don't need tons of persuasion vocally - it isn't a performance, but I love and reward clear, intellectual persuasion with high speaker points.

Eastside Catholic HS

Lincoln Douglas Debate

As long as debaters are clear, I don't care how fast they go

Speed is fine, it's a technique for gaining an advantage in the game.

Lincoln Douglas Debate

I prefer conversational delivery that focuses on persuasion

I like a lot of structure, fluency, humor, eloquence of speech. I have 30 years of NFL experience and have judged at the state tournament the past 5years and some before that. I am fully versed in all events and all debates.

I have to tell you that how you say your arguments IS the most important but your arguments matter and you need line by line, structured, sign posted, refutation.

I like a lot of structure, words like, "Contention one, sub point a." I like fluency, humor, persuasive speech. Use first names, school names, own the room. Have presence. Structure, structure, structure, structure. Be funny.

Lincoln Douglas Debate

I prefer conversational delivery that focuses on persuasion

I like a lot of structure, fluency, humor, eloquence of speech. I have 30 years of NFL experience and have judged at the state tournament the past 5years and some before that. I am fully versed in all events and all debates.

I have to tell you that how you say your arguments IS the most important but your arguments matter and you need line by line, structured, sign posted, refutation.

I like a lot of structure, words like, "Contention one, sub point a." I like fluency, humor, persuasive speech. Use first names, school names, own the room. Have presence. Structure, structure, structure, structure. Be funny.

Lincoln Douglas Debate

Faster than conversational delivery is fine, but debaters should attempt to be persuasive and keep their pace moderate

I can handle moderate speed. Slow down on tags. Clarify.

I come from a traditional circuit but im okay with speed and have a fairly okay understanding of progressive tactics. I will vote how you tell me to but im more comfortable with traditional LD debate. It would benefit you to be more traditional than progressive with me as your judge.

Gig Harbor High School

As long as debaters are clear, I don't care how fast they go

Slow down a little on tags and differentiate between tags and text. If your text is all mush and I can't understand a word of it, I won't count it as evidence. If it doesn't make it onto the flow, I won't evaluate it. I will say clear if I can't understand you. I don't mind saying clear repeatedly, so you'll know if I can't understand you. Other than that, delivery mostly affects speaker points. Being persuasive subconsciously influences my perception of your arguments, but won't be used as an RFD. Also, don't be a jerk and don't be disrespectful. No swearing. No sexism, racism, homophobic slurs, etc.

I'm generally pretty tabs with a few exceptions: I dislike Nietze, Spark DA, and Malthus, and I won't evaluate any arguments that I find to be morally abhorrent (aka, I won't vote on racism good). If your argument is really stupid, think TimeCube, I'll evaluate it. But you'll have to do a really good job of explaining it to get me to vote on it, even if the other team drops it.

I default Util but will evaluate the round through any framework. I'm good with Ks, but, you need to be able to explain the K in plain language. I do get tired of hearing Ks every round though, so if you can actually debate policy stuff well, I'm a good judge to do it in front of. I have a pretty low threshold on theory. I default competing interpretations on T, but I'll vote on reasonability. I don't like the argument "it's a novice case are so that means it's topical."

I like to see clash. Explain how your arguments interact with your opponents. Clearly extend arguments and tell me the "story" of your impacts. Do impact calculus. Basically, debate well and you'll be fine.

As long as debaters are clear, I don't care how fast they go

Lincoln Douglas Debate

Faster than conversational delivery is fine, but debaters should attempt to be persuasive and keep their pace moderate

Lincoln Douglas Debate

As long as debaters are clear, I don't care how fast they go

If delivery is not clear I will say clear. Main speaker point penalties will be if I have to say clear twice. Otherwise I don't like to hear swearing in a round unless it is used in a kritik or for some substantiated performative reason. I do listen to superfluous language and an excess of ums, uhs, and awkward pauses will result in lower speaker points.

I'm mainly what might be called a tabula rasa judge when it comes to judging LD debate. While I'm not fond of plans I won't automatically vote down any argument just because it is an argument that I disagree with.

As noted above for how I make decisions in a round, if delivery is made a factor by either debater as a reason to vote one way or another and there are warranted and substantiated reasons for why I should vote down a debater because of their delivery or not.

I'm find with a priori voters, critical argumentation, and framework that is used to exclude arguments. I like to hear a voting summary in rebuttals because I want to hear what debaters think the round comes down to and I also want to hear debaters articulate why they think that is.

Values and criterion matter as much as debaters make them matter in the round.

As long as debaters are clear, I don't care how fast they go

big picture thought is important

Faster than conversational delivery is fine, but debaters should attempt to be persuasive and keep their pace moderate

Speed is not my favorite, but I understand it. Prefer logic and persuasion over regurgitation.

Lincoln Douglas Debate

I prefer conversational delivery that focuses on persuasion

Federal Way High School

Lincoln Douglas Debate

As long as debaters are clear, I don't care how fast they go

I am okay with speed, but I am a second-year out so please keep in mind that I have not been doing speed/flow drills like you guys have so I probably can't flow as fast as you can! However, I will yell clear/slow down/whatever so feel free to hit the ground running and I'll let you know if it's over the top.

Debate good. Don't be rude.
Feel free to run any constructive case against me. Theory is fine, metatheory I will LOL at but I might vote on it. Micropolitics is okay but my threshold is higher. Traditionally CX-arguments (plans etc) are fine but please run them correctly.

As long as debaters are clear, I don't care how fast they go

I vote based on the arguments, but I'm sure delivery affects my perception of the persuasiveness of those arguments, at least to some degree

Please tell me how I should evaluate the round, and why. Be clear and make smart arguments backed by warrants. I enjoy well organized, line by line, flow-based argumentation, but am certainly open to other formats if you have reasons to reject that type of logic/communication format. Otherwise, feel free to ask any specific questions before the round.

As long as debaters are clear, I don't care how fast they go

I am ok with speed but prefer slower tags

I don't have a preference for any particular kind of argument; I enjoy both policy and critical debates. Organization is important to me in round - don't make me do all the work for you. If you are running very theoretical arguments, make sure you can explain them clearly and impact them for me.