2022 National Online Forensics Championship - College

National Online Forensics - Mar 17-20 | Status: Completed | 4:48 PM Pacific

Profile Image
Tournament Time: 4:48 PM Pacific
  Home   Contact Tournament   Schedule   Registration   Entries   Help Room   Judges Room   Squad Room   Postings   eBallots   Results   Live Streams

Judge Philosophies

Alex Brehm - LCC

Bio: I have been the Director of Forensics at Lower Columbia College since 2016. I coach a little bit of everything, but prioritize IPDA, Platform, and Limited Prep.

IPDA: I coach and judge a lot of IPDA. I love this event. Some preferences that I have in this event include:

  • IPDA debaters should prioritize effective communication. Keep the pace reasonable and limit your use of jargon. I'm generally not receptive to Ks in IPDA.
  • Though the IPDA Constitution and Bylaws do not explicitly require the use of sources, I believe that good arguments are supported by evidence.
  • I'm a sucker for thorough framework. Leave no ambiguity about how the resolution is being interpreted and what each debater needs to do in order to win.
  • The wording of the resolution is important, and the way that the debaters agree to interpret it is important. Expect me to revisit the res and framework for the round after the debate has finished. I will make my decision after carefully considering which side has better upheld their burden. Be sure to read the resolution carefully and make sure that your advocacy is in line with what the resolution is asking of you.
  • Treat your opponent with respect - they are a human person and this activity is hard.

Other forms of debate (Parli, BP, LD): I don't coach a lot of debate outside of IPDA, but still enjoy when I have the opportunity to judge other formats. Some common thoughts that apply across any non-IPDA format:

  • At the end of the day, I'm an IPDA judge - I prefer style and language that is approachable. But I'm also not going to tell you to reinvent your style on my behalf. I'll engage with any style of debating as long as it flies in your format and your opponents find it accessible.
  • The farther I get from my comfort zone, the more I appreciate clean framework and clear signposting. You're helping me out a lot if you give me clear verbal cues about your organization. The better I understand your arguments, the more likely you are to get my ballot.
  • Otherwise, my judging philosophy for other formats of debate is largely in line with my IPDA philosophy.

Limited Prep: I coach and judge a lot of limited prep. Some preferences I have in these categories include:

  • The spirit of these events is that they are delivered with limited preparation and limited notes. When making a close decision, I will prioritize competitors whose examples and attention grabbers do not seem canned or over-rehearsed. Keep your notes to a single notecard in open divisions.
  • In extemporaneous, please be careful to answer the full question. Your question is not a general prompt, but rather a specific inquiry that you are asked to respond to. Answer the question, cite good sources, and structure your speech well... you'll end up near the top of my rankings.
  • In impromptu, it is important that your interpretation of the prompt is not too much of a stretch, and your examples are reasonably in line with your interpretation. Reusing examples is fine, but fully memorized content does not belong in this category.
  • I'm happy to give whatever time signals you want - just ask before the speech :)

Platform: I coach and judge a lot of platform speeches. These were my favorite categories to compete in. Some preferences here include:

  • Across all platform categories, I'm interested in evidence. Cite lots of credible sources.
  • I'm interested in actionable solutions and smart implications. I've been known to bump a speaker up in my rankings if I'm particularly moved by solutions/implications.
  • Time matters... but it's not everything. If your speech goes over time, I'm probably breaking ties in your opponent's favor... but I'm not automatically dropping you to the bottom of the round.
  • I will always consider evidence, structure, argument, and delivery when making my ranking decisions. In a competitive round, I will additionally consider originality of topic, scope of impact, and creativity when making tough choices between well-matched competitors.

Interpretation: I don't coach much interp, but I do judge it somewhat often. Some philosophies include:

  • I don't need to see trauma to give you my 1. Please care for your mental health while engaging with raw, emotional topics.
  • Authenticity matters. I want to believe your character(s), and I want to believe the connection that you have to your performance.
  • Good interp makes an argument. I don't need you to solve world hunger in your interpretation, but I still want to hear some advocacy.

Amanda Nobra - NOF

n/a

Angelica Grigsby - Maricopa

Debate is about persuading your judge. Having said that, please talk to me, not at me. For all types of debate, let's have some clash? Call points of order in the rebuttal, I will not protect you. If you need to communicate with your partner please do it in a way that is minimally disruptive (I know this will look different in a remote setting but the concept still applies), I will only flow what comes out of their mouth during their speech. I am willing to listen to all types of arguments please just be sure that they are warranted and fully explained. Structure is vital to a clear case. Please, please, please tell me why you win the round in the rebuttal, you donât want to leave it up to me. PS-all road maps are in time.

IPDA:
   This event is not Parli lite. The best way I have heard it explained is that it is dueling extemp speeches. There should be clash, clear arguments, and clear reasons to vote for you.

NFA-LD:
I prefer a conversational rate and a speaker who engages with their audience rather than just reading their cards. I have only judged 2-3 rounds of LD all year, if you run the round like I know the topic as well as you, you may lose my ballot.

Remember to have fun!


Ayden Loeffler - IVC

  THEORY/THE ONLY SUBSTANTIVE DEBATE - This is my bread and butter. If I were able to pick and choose how every debate would go that I judged or competed in, it would just be layers and layers of theory on top of each other. On a base level I believe that theory is a question of rules that are malleable, completely made up and therefore debatable. This means that I am willing to listen to and vote on a lot of generally agreed upon "bad theory" that is debated well.

When reading fresh new and exciting theory I expect a concise interpretation, a clean violation and a distinct link to the ballot through things that should be prioritized in debate/life. If those 'things' are not fairness and education I'll likely need an explanation as to why I should care about this third priority as well.

Some hurdles (biases) for debaters to overcome when having theory rounds in front of me: (1) I tend to defend against theory than it is to read theory, (2) I find conditionality to be good and healthy for the types of debates that I want to see, (3) disclosure theory does more harm for debate (by dropping teams that didn't know about disclosing) than any good it does, (4) I weigh theory on the interpretation not its tagline (this means debaters should wait to hear the interpretation before they start writing answers that miss a poorly written OR nuanced interpretation), (5) there isn't a number or threshold for too many theory positions in a round aside from speed and clarity, (6) RVIs are not worth the breadth just sit down, (7) you're either going for theory or you aren't, I am heavily bothered by debaters that say the sentence, "and if you're buying the theory here's this disad." 

Read your interpretation slower and repeat it twice. I will not vote on theory that I do not have one clear and stable interpretation for. Also just do it because I don't want to miss out on the substance of the rounds I really want to hear.

Theory positions have differing layers of severity that adjust how I get to prioritize them when writing the ballot. This means that I want to hear arguments that suggest plan plus counterplans are justified when the AFF isn't topical or that MG theory is a bigger offense than topicality etc. Many of my ballots have been decided simple arguments that change the priority of certain theory over others.

SPEED - Speed is a tool just like written notes and a timer in debate that allow us to more efficiently discuss topics whether that be on a scale of breadth or depth. Efficiency requires a bunch of elements such as: both teams being able to respond to all or group most of the arguments in a meaningful way and being able to hear and write the arguments effectively.

To newer debaters who have stumbled into a paradigm, during the other team's speech you are free to use the words "slow" and "clear" if you feel as though you cannot keep up in the round. If the other team does not acknowledge your request, you should make it an argument that you should win the round because the other team has not accommodated basic requests for an efficient debate.

If you are an older debater with lots of experience and debating a team with less experience, I expect you to know that speed doesn't win rounds. The teams that your speed drills will give you an edge over are teams that you could have beat going at their pace. Additionally, speed good arguments being weaponized as reasons to make a grab at the ballot are not compelling to me and I'll write on your ballot that you're a bully.

For the most part, I can handle your speed. Since my time debating at Long Beach I've not had an issue in any round over speed but I have CLEARed people. I will verbally notify debaters if I can't keep up.

CRITICISMS - My interest in criticisms has waned over the years. An older  It could just be a difference in meta between when I debated and now but I find many of the critical arguments run in front of me to be either constructed or read in a way that I have difficulty understanding. I don't vote on criticisms with alternatives that are incomprehensible, poorly explained or use words that mean nothing and aren't explained (the first point of your alt solvency should probably clear up these points if your alt is a mess).

As a debater I read a fair amount of Derrida and Marx. As a student I spent much of my time writing on Derrida, Marx, Foucault, Baudrillard and most of the writers in the existentialism grab bag of philosophers. If  you aren't reading direct copy pastes out of the Long Beach files that Fletcher sent around, it would probably be to your benefit to assume that you know more than I about the inspiration for the position you're reading.

I have a very difficult time weighing identity politics impacts in rounds.

Collapse - Please collapse.

Free Stuff - If you don't have access to files from the old Long Beach Dropbox and would like them, tell me after round and I'll send them to you. Many teams have read positions from this collection of files in front of me, which I don't suggest doing (as they're old and other teams have access to them) however, they're great learning tools.

Bailey Coleman - MJC

I consider myself both a flow judge and Comm-centric judge, because I would like to be able to follow along easily on the flow but also like speakers to sound persuasive.

I am not the biggest of fan of speed. Since I am partly a flow judge, if a speaker is too fast for me to get everything on the flow then it's hard to visualize the debate on paper and see where arguments may have been dropped or pulled across. I would much rather listen to a solid, slower speech that is easy to understand and sounds persuasive and logical. Taking time with two organized, in-depth arguments is better than spreading through a bunch of arguments.

I don't mind procedural arguments as long as they aren't used just to be squirrelly. If an affirmative team is blatantly not topical, then a topicality is fine and makes sense. If a negative team runs a T just for the fun of running one, then I feel it takes focus from the actual issue in the round.

An ideal round for me is a competitive but friendly debate. I would like the AFF to be topical and focus on some solid solvency and advantages. I like the negative team to bring some good disadvantages to the round and only use topicality if totally needed. I do like counterplans and think they're a good test of the speakers' abilities to think on the spot and argue their best. I like structure and to be able to easily follow along on the flow, with debaters clearly signposting where they're at. Finally, overall I want to hear as much persuasion as possible and the debaters to clearly tell me why I should be voting for them.

Barrett Tate - NOF

n/a

Bart Aikman - COC

Above all else, I look for a concise argument that has a clear, logical flow. Strong implementation of the principles of critical analysis (claim, support, impact, etc.) is also essential. Do not make unfounded logical leaps in your argument, utilize your sources, and be kind and generous to each other as competitors. Best of luck!

Ben Krueger - Nevada

Ben Krueger (he/him/his)

University of Nevada, Reno

I competed in Parli and IEs in the early 2000s at Northern Arizona University. After many years away from competitive forensics, I returned to judging in 2016. I have been the assistant director at UNR since 2019.

General Debate Views and Preferences

1. I come from a traditional policymaking background, but I'm open to multiple frameworks and interpretations of debate. It's up to you to defend and justify your framework choices in the round.

2. I don't do well with speed. The faster you spread, the more likely it is that I'll miss arguments on the flow and make a decision you won't like.

3. Structure is good and I appreciate signposting, but remember that it's not a replacement for substantive argument. Having a catchy tagline is not the same thing as having a well-developed warrant that supports your claim.

4. Rebuttal speeches should "zoom out" and give me a big picture overview of what's going on in the round. When the rebuttal is simply a line-by-line analysis, I inevitably have to do more work to weigh the issues myself.

5. I viscerally dislike "gut check" arguments and won't vote for them. Instead, give me more specific analytic reasons why I shouldn't believe a specific claim (for example, it doesn't have a clear source, it's based on a post hoc fallacy, it's based on a faulty analogy, etc).

6. Don't be jerks. It is possible to make assertive, highly competitive arguments while still recognizing the humanity of your opponents. Hostile verbal and nonverbal behavior cheapens the pedagogical value of competitive debate and drives students away from the activity.

My views on Parli

I rarely judge Parli anymore, but in case you encounter me in a Parli round, there are a few things to be aware of about how I approach the event: (1) I hate stupid T arguments and tend to default to reasonability over competing standards unless there's something really wonky going on. (2) K's absolutely must have clear links and clear alt-solvency that I can weigh against the plan. If they don't, I will have a low threshold for accepting any plausible-sounding answer to them. (3) I will not vote for poorly-explained technical arguments just because they're on the flow if they aren't properly weighed or impacted out.

My views of IPDA

IPDA is NOT parli-lite! If you treat the round that way, I will at minimum tank your speaker points.

I believe that IPDA should be publicly accessible as a debate format, by which I mean that speeches should be delivered at at a conversational rate and and should minimize use of technical jargon as much as possible. I will still evaluate IPDA rounds from a flow-centric perspective, which means that things like top-of-case and dropped arguments still matter. Eloquent oratory or witty comebacks alone will not be enough to win my ballot if you aren't winning on flow. I tend to be disinclined to vote on framework presses beyond the level of definitions reasons to prefer a specific criterion.

Although uncommon, I find myself giving more low-point wins in IPDA than I did in Parli. If I give you a low-point win, it typically means one of two things happened: (1) you clearly won on flow, but there was a major issue with your delivery/presentation style, (2) you weren't winning on flow, but your opponent collapsed to the wrong voting issues or made some major strategic blunder in rebuttals that led me to buy your voting issues instead.

A Final Note on Recent Political Developments (6/2022)

In light of recent developments in national politics, I am choosing to disclose that I am a gay man. Please be mindful that resolutions about legal rights of specific groups (such as LGBTQ+ individuals, women, or racial minorities) can be triggering to competitors and judges when framed as a binary either/or choice between maintaining civil rights or eliminating them. In such rounds, I will grant leeway to both affirmative and negative teams to frame their arguments in ways that avoid a morally problematic division of ground. If you find yourself on the "bad" side of such a resolution, some ideas for you how might reframe include: state-level counterplans, constitutional amendments, constitutional convention, secession, Northern Ireland-style consociationalism, etc.

Beth Cole - NOF

n/a

Brandan Whearty - Palomar

Brandan Whearty

Palomar College

Short Version: You Talk, I'll Listen

Long Version: I tend to view debate as a negotiation between the government and opposition over what will happen during the 45 minutes of engagement. This means that whatever parameters both teams agree on are ok. I will listen to fast technical debate, slow rhetorical debate, and alternate forms such as performance with equal interest. I will listen to Topicality, C/Kritiks, Vagueness, Value Objections, Resolutionality, etc. Remember that just because its a procedural issue it doesnt mean tags will suffice. Asking me to drop a team on procedural violation requires a warrant or two, and I'm happy to listen to procedural level offense from the Affirmative as well.

YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT I HAVE REPETITIVE STRESS INJURIES TO MY HANDS AND SOME DIFFICULTY HEARING, WHICH MEANS A TOP-LEVEL TEAM CAN SPEAK FASTER THAN I CAN FLOW. I CAN KEEP UP WITH 70%-75% OF TOP SPEED, PROVIDED THAT THE SPEAKER'S ARTICULATION IS EXCELLENT (SO I CAN CHEAT A LITTLE BY READING LIPS) AND THAT THE SPEAKER'S STRUCTURE IS PERFECT. IF NEITHER OF THOSE CONDITIONS ARE TRUE, YOU MAY NEED TO SLOW DOWN MORE SO I CAN UNDERSTAND YOU. Later in the tournament, I may need you to slow down even more as my hands fail. If you're losing me, you'll know immediately and loudly. Also, please avoid strategies that require me to fill sheets of paper with arguments that we all know will be discarded in the next speech. If there are more than 10-13 pages per debate, the burning in my hands starts to drown out your arguments.

Though I consider myself a flow critic, I am becoming increasingly frustrated by laundry lists of taglines filling in for substantial, warranted analysis. I think that the words, because and for example are important, and you should probably use them a lot.

Please call important points of order in both rebuttals, in order to save me from guessing which arguments you want me to intervene and discard. If both teams want me to intervene and throw out arguments I see as new, mention it in the round and I will defer to your collective judgment. Abusing Points of Order will destroy your speaker points and compromise your tournament seeding.

I collect ACTUAL TURNS. People use the word turn a lot in parliamentary debate. This confuses me, because it is usually followed by an argument like, They dont solve enough, other bad things will still happen, or is not. If you make an actual turn, I will probably pound happily on the table to let you know.

I appreciate lighthearted jabs, and heckling is fine as long as it is funny rather than rude. If you have ever wanted to run an extreme or bizarre advocacy, I may be your best chance to pick up on it. Enjoy yourselves,be nice, and speaks will be high.

A few more preferences that may help you win my ballot:

* Explain your perms and provide a clear text for each one. Otherwise, you may accidentally win the argument that your side should lose.

* It is way easier for me to vote for your procedural with demonstrated abuse in round. Potential abuse is almost impossible for me to evaluate without wondering about potential answers and potential turns.

* I am getting bored with delay/politics strategies. If you're going to run them in front of me, engage my interest with an amazing demonstration of this strategy's power and legitimacy. If you have a choice between delay/politics and a kritik debate, please choose the latter.

* Please make sure I understand what you're saying. If you want me to cast my ballot because "...durable fiat is instantaneous," you should probably make sure I know what you mean. I can *guess* at what you mean, but that's no good for either of us.

Brandon Sams - Weber

I like competitors who make logical arguments and are great listeners.

Bright Ajayi (he/him) - Park

n/a

Carolyn Clarke - NIU

n/a

Chris Josi - Mt. Hood CC

I have coached for about 3 years after competing and becoming nationally recogonized. My goal now is to always be available to help debaters improve their technique.

I try to be as impartial as I can, and limit the scope to what is happening in the round. However, please do not inflate the truth. I default to qualitative on balance.

You need to impact your points and explain why it is imperative I need to vote for your case. Structure is also very important; I won't connect arguments for you.

Speaking quickly is up to you and your opponent, not me. Please respect each other's pacing. However, as long as I can understand what you're saying I will flow it.

I believe Topicality and Kritik arguments are import, but they should be resevered for when your opponent has stepped out of the bounds of the debate.

Connor Sears - CSUN

n/a

Corin Wallace - CSULB

n/a

Cyndi Berck - UCSD

n/a

David Trumble - STA

n/a

Destinee Sior - Maricopa

Hello!

My name is Destinee Sior and I am a debate coach for Maricopa Community College. I just have a few things to say about how I view the wonderful world of debate, and my method on judging. For starters- no matter the type of debate- I will always want you to do what you do best, what you feel comfortable with, and debate in whichever way makes you happy. 

I do not mind if you do critical or policy oriented debate. I enjoy listening to Ks and I really enjoy just straight policy cases. Whichever one you choose, all I ask is that you give me a solid structure and you stick to it. Sloppy debate is one of my biggest pet peeves. Please make it easy for me to follow you so I can get everything you say down on paper. I don't care for the double-clutching speed debate, but I can typically flow well if you want to spread. However-- just because, I can flow it does not mean your opponent can. If you are asked to clear you need to SLOW DOWN. I do not care for Ks ran out of the affirmative, but if you want to party please have a solid link story. Negative strats should include an interrogation of the affirmative, as well as their own case. I will not gut check your arguments for you, please do not ask me to do that. Tell me why dropped arguments are important. I love impact calc ¤ Weigh your impacts on timeframe, magnitude, and probability. Give me voters / reasons to prefer. I think it is the job of the debater to make my job easy, but also have fun. I loved debate and you should debate the way you love. 

IPDA-- For the IPDA debaters, please understand I have a Parli and LD background. With that being said, I understand that IPDA is not Parli nor LD. Therefore, please do not debate as such. My judging philosophy for this though is roughly the same-- structure, structure, structure. Give me a solid impact story. Do not just say lives saves improves ecosystem -- what does that MEAN? Why does it matter? How are you weighing it against your opponent? Do not just rely on me to do the work for you. Give me lots and lots of warrants, I love evidence. Most importantly, lets have some fun.

Dewi Hokett - Palomar

n/a

Dillon McCoy - TxState

n/a

Donald Warden - Mercer

TL;DR: Make my job easy.

- Run T when needed. I hate T debate, so please do not spend the whole neg block on it.

- I don't time, and I don't care if you want to respond to the question or finish your sentence after the timer; being pedantic about times ruins education.

- Please signpost. You can jump around the flow as much as you want as long as I know where to jump.

- Explain perms clearly.

- Spreading your opponents out of the round. Whatever. But I also recommend not spreading your judge (me) out of the round either.

- K and performative debate is just as valid as straight debate. Make the arguments clear.

Felicity Dogbaste - BGSU

n/a

Howie Long - Weber

n/a

Isaac Baker - Weber

n/a

Janine Wilkins - Park

n/a

Jay Villanueva - NOF

n/a

Jeanette Rodriguez - Fullerton College

n/a

Jeff Samano - Fullerton College

n/a

Jenifer Montgomery - SCC

My Experience:

 

2.5 years of college individual events for OCC and CSUF (NFA/AFA)

INFO, POE, POI, IMP, PROS

 

3 years coaching elementary, middle school, high school and college-level forensics

- Coached and judged all IE events as well as Parli, POFO, IPDA, and a bit of LD

 

Tldr; I'm looking for logical, respectful, and fair debates where you show confidence in your arguments and sources. Fun debates are welcome as long as any sassiness, jokes, etc. are made in good fun maintain respect, and everyone is clear on this. Focus building YOUR argument most of all.

 

What are the most important criteria you consider when evaluating a debate?

 

I'm looking for solid arguments that are backed by sources and can be defended against your opponent's questions and counter-arguments. Confidence in your argument makes a huge difference as well; if you don't believe your own arguments, how do you expect me to?

 

I appreciate a slower, clear, emphasis on your main contentions so that I am clear on what I am judging and where points are dropped. It's extra helpful however, fo you to call out any dropped arguments as it (1) helps me catch any I missed and (2) shows me that you caught it and are critically analyzing your opponent's arguments.

 

What are your expectations for proper decorum from the debaters?

 

Courtesy above all else. This usually isn't a problem, but I have seen some eye rolls, face-making, and rude remarks made mid-debate. I don't mind a friendly banter amongst competitors (in fact, I LOVE a witty and fun debate) but please make that clear at the end with some good sportsmanship. Overall I don't want to see any lines crossed in terms of respect. Keep ad hominem at the door, we are a community and should treat each other as such.

 

I also love to see your personalities pop in a debate and love to see any personal ties to your arguments. You are a unique human being so play to your strengths as a speaker, I will adapt to you.

 

What strategies/positions/arguments are you predisposed to listen to and consider when you vote?

 

I want you to make a strong argument for YOUR point and not just focus on dismantling your opponent's points (especially neg). Even if you manage to poke holes in your opponent's arguments or plans, if they're the only ones who gave me a solid plan to go off of, they will still get my vote. Do not simply tell me to vote for you, let your arguments convince me of that.

 

How do you evaluate speed, jargon, and technical elements?

 

If your opponent is fine with these aspects so am, however, I am also aware of the many arguments against spreading so if this is brought up mid-round that is something I will take into consideration against anyone spreading who did not check in with their opponents (& me) beforehand. In short, your opponent needs to be able to follow along with your arguments in order for this debate to be fair.

 

Most importantly: Have fun! 

Joel Salcedo - Fullerton College

n/a

Joel Anguiano - SCC

I have had expereince in Parli, NFA-LD, and IPDA, both as competitor and coach. I understand all debate arguments and tend to vote on clear voters by both sides. But please make sure that you are doing the work and connecting the dots. It is always better to have the voters presented clearly then to leave up to me and the flow. As far as techincal arguments in Parli and NFA-LD I think T is an argument that the Neg has and will weigh it if there is a clear reason to use it as. weighing mechanism in the round. I also think that all debaters should be respectful of ecah other. I will weigh anything you want to put on the flow, just make sure you give a clear reason why.

Joshua Stewart - CSULB

n/a

Jules Patelita - BGSU

I live for chaos ... and Godzilla ... and D&D ... possibly veggie pizza ... but only good veggie pizza.

Julia Mitchell - LCC

BIO:

  • I competed in IPDA, limited prep, and platform events. I am a frequent judge in the Northwest circuit. Everything that follows are my general preferences within each respective category. If you have further questions, I am open to answering them before a round starts. Ultimately, my goal is to adjust my judging to fit you and the diversity within any given round over asking you all to accommodate me. All of the following preferences, I think, are general expectations everyone can agree makes for a more educational and fun experience.

IPDA/Parli: Preferences and pet peeves:

  • Do not use the word abusive unless it is literally impossible for you to win the round under the given framework. Ground skew, uneven ground, and unfair framework all do the job. Abusive should be reserved for truly egregious circumstances.
  • I am okay with fast talking if what you are saying is intelligible.
  • I like a fair and clear framework. Clean top of case makes for a more educational round for everyone. Definitions, round type, weighing mech, and burdens are all appreciated. YOU should tell me how I should pick a winner rather than me being left up to my own devices. Nobody wants that.
  • Do not be petty. I am fine with some more assertive (sometimes aggressive) debate styles, but I really do not enjoy pettiness. Do not misrepresent your opponent's arguments or make them seem stupid. Honor them and the best of their case within your refutation.
  • Evidence is not required in IPDA, but it sure makes you seem more knowledgeable and credible.

Platform: Preferences and pet peeves:

  • Good evidence is appreciated. Obviously, you are not going to be including more than you have at this point, but make sure your verbal citations are clear and well enunciated.
  • Going overtime is not the end of the world to me, within reason. If you are more than ten seconds over, I am inclined to rank you lower than a near competitor in a very close round.
  • Nonverbals are huge in Platform speaking. If your body language is stiff and awkward, I am likely to be distracted and not hear all the smart things you are saying. However, over gesturing and never letting your hands/upper body rest will also detract from what you are saying. Try and strike a balance between comfortable and confident.

Limited Prep: Preferences and pet peeves:

  • In EXT, I value answering the actual question you are given fully and specifically. Also, please have evidence; the more, the merrier. I would love to see 6+ sources in your speech. I will offer time signals.
  • In IMP, pacing, creativity, and cohesion are most important to me. Time allotments between points can easily get askew, and it causes thorough analysis to be cut short. Next, Impromptu is supposed to have an element of originality and spontaneity to it. I do not mind repeated examples (NOT scripted), but try and tell me something new every time about those examples. Finally, make it make sense. If your interpretation is miles away from the actual quotation, I am not inclined to buy your argument and supporting examples as much. I will offer time signals.

Interpretation: Preferences and pet peeves:

  • Interp can be a lot. Regardless of the nature of your piece, the energy it can take to perform it well can be really draining. Try your best, but care for yourself. Ultimately, I want to see your connection to your work really shine through, whatever that looks like.

Julia Bennett - CWI

I come from a strong events background, with a primary emphasis in interpretation / theatre. My judging experience in debate is as an IPDA coach. I appreciate the structured focus on cogent, accessible argumentation for an educated citizen, and I lean into that as a judge.I dont respond to speed for speeds sake, I do weigh on impacts. I appreciate competitors who can articulate the logicin their case and make it legible to me.

My values:

Clarity & precision: I look for evident preparation, precision, and attention to detail. No matter your level of competitive experience, articulate your position to the best of your ability. In debate, help me to follow your line of thought - use the weighing mechanism throughout. Deliver with force, size, and precision. Show mastery and professionalism at whatever level youre at.

Connection - Make your cases and authentically communicate them with the judge. Make the line of argument clear, keep reminding me why you should take the case. Lean in, and embrace your advocacy.

Authenticity - Be in the room. Respect your peers, and be civil.

Justin Fields - CWI

n/a

Kayla Griffin - Weber

Give trigger warnings if you talk about traumatic things. I don't like acted out rape scenes - I will give you the lowest score for that.
In debate I look for strong communication, logical links, and strong clash!

Kyle Duffy - COC

Ive been judging for the past 8 years and mainly judge I.E. events. Thus, I look for a few key things when it comes to debate:
- Do NOT Spread. I dont consider this a sign of a well thought out argument. More information rarely helps. Choose the best sources and arguments you have. You wont always have time to say everything and thats ok.
- Do NOT speak quickly. A normal, conversational rate is always the most appropriate.
- Absolutely no personal attacks against your opponent. Be respectful.
- Do your best to signpost your topics and follow a logical structure. I do have difficulty following along at times, especially if pacing is quick. So help me out.
- No need for complicated theory positions.
- If you can insert humor into your debate, go for it!
- Please time yourselves. This allows me to focus on your arguments and not the clock.
- Most importantly, have fun and relax! Im friendly and I love to joke around.
At the end, I primarily judge based on two key areas: how well you convinced me that your argument is the correct one via your logic and evidence (how credible do you sound?), and second, your ability to persuade me via your emotional connection to the topic (they really moved me).

Lizeth Chimal - Mt. SAC

Hi! My Name is Lizeth Chimal.

When judging, I want a clear reason on why I should be voting for you. (Make it easy for me) I should not have to fill in the holes. Logic in arguments is very important. The more you break down an argument the more enticed I will be to vote for you. Have fun! No spreading.

Logan Worthley - CWI

Lucy Giusto - Contra Costa

I have over 30 years of experience in speech and debate. It is important to sign-post in all events so that I know where to apply arguments. Debate events such as IPDA and Parlimentary debate require explanation of the debaters arguments using analogies and examples and some evidence. Debate events like policy debate require evidence and a rationale for the evidence. Please provide a rationale along with a tag.

Luke Yeates - CWI

I have been directly involved in the debate community for about a decade, first as a competitor and now as the director of a team. I have extensive experience both as a competitor and a judge, with my primary debate events being Parli, IPDA, Public Forum, and British Parlimentary. I have judging experience with Lincoln Douglas, but no competitive experience.

In general I respond positively to the norms that each debate style embodies. Each format brings something unique and I enjoy those differences. I like and value the evidenced rhetoric in IPDA, I like listening to debaters unpack Ks in Parli (The link story better be clear though), and I love the advocacy and philosophy that can be used in PF. A priori voting issues absolutely matter, but I dislike running theory just for the sake of it. Put another way, go for the theory argument if you genuinely belive it should be pursued, not just because you feel its the 'next step in the process'. Conditionality arguments and T shells are great examples of use/misuse here.

Some of the speed that can happen at debate specific competitions don't necessarily fit the goals of this tournament and I work to respect that, with the noted exception of LD. If thats you, go as fast as you like. If not, depth is better than breadth. I prefer to vote on case level arguments, assuming all other framework issues are settled, so be sure to connect your arguments and cross apply your rebuttals. Please clarify your impacts as well, especially if the core of your style is policy. Beyond the RA, without warranted impacts I have to vote on something else, and I would rather not have to make an arbitrary decision. Tell me where you are winning. Whip speeches and rebuttals matter. I know this sounds simple but, utilize your weighing mechanism. That particular tool is valuable to everyone in the round regardless of format.

Finally, while I wish I didnt have to include this part, Ive seen it occur as a judge a bit too often so it's important for you to know how I will react if this happens in your round. Yes, debate is a direct and blunt activity, but there is a line. If you cross that line and become rude, hostile, or personal, I will drop you on principle, even if you would have won the round on the flow. I will not reward a competitor who competes by bullying or dragging their opponent.

I don't want to end on a sour note, so to wrap it up with a more uplifting tone, if you have any questions or need any clarification please don't hesitate to ask me before we start the round. I also keep all my flows for the duration of the tournament, so if you have questions after the round is over and you see me walking around, I am more than happy to talk about it. Just please don't ask me if you won or lost.

Mark Galaviz - Weber

I remember long ago never to walk in anyone's shadow. If I fail, or if I succeed, at least I lived what I believe.

Matt DuPuis - NIU

n/a

Matthew Alingog - CSUF

n/a

Michael Starzynski - Maricopa

n/a

Mike Juergens - IVC

n/a

Natalie Wellman - SDSU

Nathaneal McBride - CWI

I have been a member of the Forensics community for over a decade. First as a competitor and for the past several years as a coach and judge. I have experience in all individual events and IPDA debate. I am familiar with all other styles of debate and their formats. Despite their differences, I believe that all forms of debate can be judged on these basic guidelines:

  • Debaters should prioritize effective communication, especially in IPDA. Reasonable pacing and articulation are preferred. If a style utilizes speed, it still needs to be easy to follow. Jargon should not be used to obscure arguments.
  • Arguments should be supported by evidence. Evidence is not an argument in of itself, it needs to be impacted.
  • Framework should be well executed. A solid framework clearly interprets the resolution. A good framework guides me in my voting process.
  • Weighing mechanisms are important. They should be utilized throughout all arguments, not as a throwaway in the resolutional analysis.
  • Everyone should be treated with respect. I do not respond well to ad hominem and curt behavior. Be excellent to each other.

Nikolas Welker - BGSU

I hate debaters ... especially with sauerkraut ... because that is nasty.

Orion Steele - SFSU

Judge Philosophy for Orion Steele

Experience - I debated for Millard West High School for 3 years, then I debated for the University of Redlands for 4 years. Finished in Quarters at the NDT in 2004 and 2005. Since graduating from Redlands in 2005, I have coached at the University of Redlands, San Francisco State University and Cal State Fullerton. I have also taught at various high school camps around the country. I hold a law degree and a masters degree in Human Communication Studies. After coaching at St. Vincent De Paul High School, I worked for several years as a coach for the Bay Area Urban Debate League. After that, I began teaching full time at San Francisco State University. i currently teach debate at SFSU, City College of San Francisco and USF. I am also currently the director of forensics at University of San Francisco.

General Thoughts - I love all kinds of debate, from traditional debate to wacky crazy debate and everything in between. In general, you may make any argument you want when I am your judge, but I think you should have a warrant (a “because” statement) for any argument you make. If you can explain why an argument is good and/or important, then I will evaluate it. I promise you that I will listen to everything you say in the debate and try as hard as I can to evaluate all of the arguments fairly. Education, Fairness and FUN are three important values that I care about deeply. Debaters that make the round more fun, more fair, and more educational will be rewarded.

I’m sure you probably want specifics, so here we go:

Topicality - Go ahead. I will pull the trigger on T, but it is easier for the Neg if they can demonstrate in round abuse. I will obviously vote on T if you win the debate on T, but it will make me feel better about what I’m doing if you can show in round abuse.

Disads - Love em. Try to explain how they turn the case.

Counter plans - Love em. Beat the Perm/Theory.

Theory - Will vote on theory, but will rarely vote on cheap shots. If you think you have a good theory argument, defend it seriously.

Kritiks - Love em. The more specific the K, the better for you. In other words, explain your concepts.

Performance - Go ahead. I have been profoundly inspired by some performance debates, and encourage you to think about creative ways to speak. If your style of argumentation combines form and content in unique ways, I will evaluate the debate with that in mind.

Framework - An important debate tool that should be included in our activity. I will admit I have some proclivities about specific framework arguments (Aff choice in particular is a vacuous argument that I won’t vote for), but if you win on Framework then I will vote for you.

Bias - Of all the arguments that I am exposed to on a regular basis, I probably have the biggest bias against conditionality. I do not feel good about multiple conditional contradictory advocacies and I do not believe there is such thing as a conditional representations kritik. If you have a conditional advocacy, and the other team adequately explains why that is unfair or bad for debate, I will vote against you on condo.

Overall, one of the coolest parts of debate is seeing how radically different approaches compete with each other. In other words, I like to see all kinds of debate and I like to see what happens when different kinds of debate crash into each other in a round. If I am your judge, you should do what you like to do best, and assume that I am going to try as hard as possible to think about your arguments and evaluate them fairly.

FINAL NOTE
I would just like to use this space to say that I am VERY disappointed in the judge philosophies of some other people in this community. I have been in college debate land for a while, but I am taken back by the number of high school debate judges that say “do not pref me if you make x argument” or “I think debate should be about policy education and I will not consider anything else”. Your job as a judge is to listen to other people speak about what they want in the manner they want and make a fair decision. You are doing a disservice to debaters and hurting the educational value of our activity by removing yourself from debates where you may feel uncomfortable. You are never going to learn how to deal with inevitable shifts in the direction of our activity if you never open your mind to different arguments and methods.

Paul Wesley Alday - BGSU

I strongly believe that waffles are superior to pancakes and that soy milk is not really milk.

Philip Sharp - Nevada

Phil Sharp- University of Nevada-Reno

I have been a DOF for 15 years. I have coached national champions in a number of different formats. I really enjoy good argumentation and strong clash. A good debate will include two sides being respectful of each other and the audience while battling over the resolution provided. While your delivery and decorum are important aspects of persuasion, your arguments will be the center of my evaluation.
I like it when debaters guide me to the decision they want to read on the ballot rather than being mad that I didn't vote the way the wanted me to. Focus on the criteria dn do ballotwork in the debate, especially in the last speeches.

Phoebe Melikidse - COC

I welcome any style for debate so long as your argument is clear and structured. Good delivery is also a plus, so speaking loudly, at an appropriate tempo, and demonstrating some enthusiasm for your argument.

Raffaela Baker - Saddleback

Keep it conversational

Let me know how to evaluate the debate (i.e., provide a voting criteria)

No spreading please.

Have fun!

Rebecca Pickner - LCC

n/a

Richard Paine - Noctrl

      As a competitor, I used the NDT style.  As a coach, I have coached NDT-CEDA (for about 10 years), LD (for about 7 years), IPDA (for about 7 years), and Parli (for about 15 years).  My philosophy obviously has to shift in various ways depending on the type of debate I'm judging, but here are a few key points that generally apply:

    (1) Seek clash.  Don't let the debate become two ships passing in the night.  If your opponent makes an argument, don't drop it - respond to it directly, and show me why your position directly clashes with and takes out theirs.  If your opponent drops an argument of yours, make sure you pull it across and tell me why it matters.

    (2) Be organized.  Regardless of the format, I want to hear numbers/letters and clear tags that are maintained throughout the debate.  Don't just speak in uninterrupted sentences.  Give me numbers and tags if you want me to flow the arguments.

    (3) Topicality matters to me.  The affirmative/government has the initial right to define the terms, but they must be reasonable.  Any challenges coming from the other side must be premised on the question of reasonability.  

    (4) I don't like counterplans.  If you feel that you absolutely must run one, you should know that I feel counterplans must be NON-topical.

     (5) I'm also not a fan of kritiks.  They seldom strike me as the best way to go.

     (6) In a policy round, I am a "stock issues" judge.

     (7) Don't just make claims.  Be sure you support those claims with both logic and concrete evidence whenever possible.  Seek to demonstrate the impact of any given argument.

     (8) Affirmative plans should be fully developed.  It is the initial responsibility of the affirmative to provide all plan components - it is not the responsibility of the negative to seek them through cross-ex.  

     (9) Cross-ex questions are binding.  In formats that allow questions to be asked during speech time, the speaker should take questions QUICKLY.  No "I don't have time" or "I'll take it at the end of this (endless) position."  If you ignore legal questions for more than a short time, I quit flowing your speech.

     (10)  Speed should be easily comprehensible and flowable.  If I can't get your arguments written down, then I can't base my judgment on them.

     (11)  Be cordial and polite to your opponents.  I appreciate intensity and assertiveness - but please don't cross the line into downright rudeness.

    (12) I do not believe that debate is a "tag-team" sport.  Thus, debaters should not interrupt their partners' speeches to add information, clarify statements, tell them what to talk about next, answer questions for them, or whatever.  Only the person whose official speech time we are in should be talking for your team.

     (12) If you have other specific questions, please ask them just before we start debating the round.

     (13)  Have fun!  The whole point of this is to enjoy it as we develop our skills together.  Trophies aren't the point - greater skills are.



Robert Brown - Spelman

I debated in HS (LD) and in College (CEDA now NDT) and have coached for the past four years with teams that do BP, NPDA, IPDA and Civic Debate. I have also taught Arg & Debate.

I am a tabby judge: which means that I do not come to the round with any prior knowledge. As a result, I will not finish arguments for debaters.

Debaters should be prepared to match claims with warrants and have well-thought out link stories. They should also be prepared to explain why their harms outweigh their opponents, if the debate is a policy/value one.

But I firmly believe that the debate space is created by the debaters and the easiest way to judge a round is if there is appropriate clash of ideas where the debaters explain why their ideas, on the whole, win out.

Robert Campbell - UCSD

Head Coach, University of California Speech & Debate. Former member of the national championship teams at the University of Kansas. An ideal debate round involves organization of case and arguments, clarity, and clash (direct argumentation). I despise "spreading" (no auctioneer ever won an argument) and any Affirmative "K"s (debate the resolution).

Samantha Cohen - LCC

n/a

Sara Moghadam - NOF

n/a

Sarah Walker - NAU

Sarah Walker
Director of Forensics and Debate, Northern Arizona University

Altogether, I have about 15 years of experience in a variety of debate types, as a competitor and judge. Most of that experience has been in Parliamentary Debate.


I have a strong background in Rhetorical Criticism and Argumentation, so I am confident I can grasp any K, Plan Text, CP, or perm you bring up. If your speed, technical jargon, or volume make it difficult for me to keep up however, I may give up flowing, and I cannot judge on what doesnâ??t make it to my paper.
Overall, I have most appreciated debates that have been centered on making well warranted, competing arguments. If you can clearly refute the central arguments of the other team, you will go a long way in creating not only a stronger debate, but also a happier judge.

Things you should know:
1) I prefer debates with clash, where the aff plan is the central space for negative arguments. This means:
(a) Plan texts/advocacy statements are preferred over their absence.
(b) As a general rule, the efficacy of the policy/advocacy probably matters more than how one represents it.
(c) Critiques on objectionable items in the plan are preferred. I like specific K links. All Ks have a presumed alternative, which means the aff can always make a permutation.
(d) I have reservations about judging performance/personal politics debates. I likely have at least a workable understanding of your literature, but I do prefer a debate constructed on a rubric I am more familiar with, and I simply have less experience with this style. I am happy to learn, and willing to judge this type of round, but be aware that the argument does still need warrant, and I will still need to be able to flow something. Please make your arguments clear.

2) Miscellaneous but probably helpful items

(a) I view debate as a professional activity. This means you should not be acting in a way that would get you removed from a professional setting. I understand the purpose behind profanity and the showing of pornography or graphic images, but these should be kept to moderation, and there should be a clear warrant for them in the round. As far as I am concerned, there is absolutely no reason for rude, violent, or hyper-aggressive statements in a debate round. Ad hominem is a fallacy, not an effective debate strategy. I will dock your points for it.
(b) When speaking, giving road maps, etc., please speak with the purpose of making sure that the judge heard you. If I canâ??t place your arguments, I am much less likely to flow it. Clearly signposting and providing a roadmap is an easy way to avoid this problem.
(c) I am much more impressed by smart arguments and good clash than I am with highly technical debates. If you drop whole points or arguments in the flow in favor of chasing down one argument, do not expect me to overlook those dropped args.
(d) Evidence is evidence, not the argument itself. Both are necessary to create a good debate. Please remember that evidence without an argument will be hard for me to flow, and thus vote on, and arguments without evidence are rarely strong enough to withstand scrutiny.
(e) I donâ??t grant universal fiat. Saying that something should be done just because you have the power to do it is not a strong argument, nor is it likely to lead to a better debate. Iâ??d prefer you explain WHY and HOW we should enact the plan, rather than simply insisting that it can be done.

3) Clipping Issues: I will stop the debate to assess the accusation and render a decision after the review. While I understand why other people proactively police this, I am uncomfortable doing so absent an issue of it raised during the debate. If proof of significant (meaning more than a few words in one piece of evidence) clipping is offered, it's an automatic loss and zero points for the offending team and debater.

4) Topicality debates: If you truly believe an abuse of the resolution was levied, or if you truly cannot work in the limitations provided, then bring up T. If not, then I am more likely to view a T argument as a distraction tactic. You will get farther arguing ground loss than with an arg about the interpretations of the T.

5) Timing the debate and paperless: You should time yourselves, but I will time to enforce efficiency. I stop flowing when the timer goes off. Donâ??t abuse the timer.

Scott Wells - St. Cloud State U

n/a

Shahin Shams - IVC

I debated for IVC for a few years. I’ve done NPDA, IPDA, LD mostly. I’m okay with anything in round if you give me a reason to believe it. I’m okay with speed but if me or anyone indicates “clear” I expect you to respect them in round and adjust the speed. Be respectful to each other in round.

Shannon Valdivia - Mt. Hood CC

I have been coaching for 25 years. I was a CEDA-Value debater as a competitor and have coached NPDA, BP and IPDA. 

I value substance AND delivery! You won't get my ballot by just talking pretty.

I want to see a clear framework set up with your resolutional analysis. I want a clear CRITERIA so you can tell me what lens am I to look at your arguments. I expect that if it is a value, policy or fact based resolution - that the case structure will resemble the resolution you've been given - not what you want to turn it into. 

I expect competitors to be kind and respectful to each other - in every aspect of the debate - from saying hello, to how you ask questions in CX. 

On the Neg. Please give me a Negative philosophy so I know how you are looking at the resolution. If you need to give counter definitions, values, criterias - then I need to know WHY you are doing this and HOW your offering is BETTER than the AFF. Please make sure you are linking your off case arguments to case so that I know which part of the case you are attacking. SIGNPOSTING IS IMPORTANT!

SPEED KILLS: I know that the times in this style of debate can be challenging....but instead of speeding - try word economy! Speed will impact your speaker points. 

Bottom line: In the words of my late mother - PERSUADE ME!


Steve Robertson - Contra Costa

Steve Robertson

Contra Costa College, Director of Forensics

Years competed:1 yr LD (high school), 4.5 years NDT/CEDA (college)

Years coaching: 25+ years (middle school, high school, college - LD, parli, NDT/CEDA, IPDA)

Philosophy - The round is for you to convince me why your side should win the debate. try to be as non-interventionist as I can be. I work off the flow, focusing on your claims, warrants, and evidence. Believability is also a factor. I find it very difficult to vote for arguments that I don't understand how they work or function. So be sure to explain why things are the way they are. Compare impacts, and explain why your impacts/argument outweigh or should be viewed as more important than theirs. The main point is that you need to justify your position to me: what is your argument, why is it legitimate, and why does that matter in light of the other side's arguments. If you can adequately answer those three questions better than the other side, you should win the argument.

I punish non-responsiveness - meaning that if you drop or undercover arguments, they suddenly get much more weight in the round (especially if exploited by the other team). However, if you under-develop your arguments (such as blipping out theory pre-empts without justifying them), it doesn't take much to respond to these arguments.

I also communicate through nonverbals. If you see me nodding, then that means I understand your position (not necessarily agree with it, but I get what you're saying). If you see me cocking my head to the side or scrunching up my face, it means I don't get what you're saying or I don't understand your argument or I don't see why it's relevant. If you see that face, you should either give more explanation (until you see a head nod) or cut your losses and move onto another argument. If you see my hands in the air, that means I don't know where you are on the flow. You should give me a signpost, because I'm currently not flowing you.

Here are some event-specific concerns:

Parli- Debate starts at the highest point of conflict. I will listen to arguments of trichot/type of resolution, though if the tournament identifies it as a particular type of resolution this becomes a bit more difficult.

I don't care about partner to partner communication. However, if it's done during the other team's speech, then mute yourselves from this 8x8 (e.g., chat privately, mute yourselves and talk in another venue, etc.). Don't disrupt the other speaker.

If you want to give your partner advice or arguments, that's fine as well. There are 2 things to be aware of: First, I only listen to what the speaker says. So if you tell your partner something, it doesn't reach my flow until the current speaker says it. Saying "yeah, what she said" will get onto my flow as "yeah, what she said" - not the actual argument. Second, the more you parrot or puppet your partner, the lower your speaker points will become. This is purely subjective on my part, so use at your own peril.

Finally, parli has the Point of Order. I will not protect against new arguments or other rules violations (unless specified to do so in the tournament rules). Use this if applicable. Frivolous use of it, however, will desensitize me to it.

LD- You have the obligation to provide evidence in this debate. Please do so. Referencing evidence that has not been read in the debate will carry the same weight as an assertion for me.

For me, reading the source (publication title and/or authors' last names) and date is sufficient for citations, provided that all additional information is provided on the card's citation itself. If you want to run an official rules violation on this in front of me, I will entertain it, but realize I am disinclined to vote evidence or a debater down if that information is available on the card. Doesn't mean you can't win it, just that it'll be an uphill battle.

Realize that while underlining and highlighting are acceptable ways of modifying evidence for a round, ellipses, unreadable font size, or gaps in text are unacceptable.

IPDA- IPDA is more of a communication event than a debate for me. It is NOT treated the same as parli. I do not flow, but take a very limited amount of notes. Eloquence factors into the decision for me. I think of this as a townhall meeting, closer to interactive persuasion than debate. Avoid debate jargon, extensive line by line analysis, and other more traditional debate tactics. This is about persuasion, not strict argumentation. Think of debating in front of your grandmother, not a debate judge.

Bottom line - make good arguments, offer clash, give impact calculus/comparison, and be civil to one another. Oh...and have fun! :)

Subashini Swaminathan - UCSD

n/a

Tai Du - NOF

n/a

Taylor Stickle - Saddleback

n/a

Therese (Lisa) Nguyen - UCSD

n/a

Tiffany Craig - Mt. Hood CC

n/a

Tim Cornell - CWI

n/a

Trace Jones - Weber

n/a

Travis Cornett - NOF

n/a

Tyshee Sonnier - TxState

n/a

Vrinda Saroha - UCSD

Hello everyone, I am Vrinda Saroha. I used to be a delegate in MUNs, trying to pass the most difficult of motions, until I turned to debating. I have been on the board of my school's BRICS forum, and I have judged a number of elocution competitions. 

 
(1) I am from India. Here, most judges pay attention on how the debaters' accent and pronunciation sounds like. Let me tell you something. I DO NOT CARE about the accent, the pronunciation, the diction, *as long as* I can understand what you are saying. 
 
(2) As a debater, I wanted judges to listen to even bizarre arguments. For example : "How smoking does NOT kill". Quite ludicrous, right? 
But I will listen. I like listening to arguments. How they are formulated. How they are presented. How they are ended. I am not looking for any fancy quotes or phrases in French. What I want to feel, is the essence of your argument. 
 
(3) I really like the flow of the debate. I do not favour interruptions. 
 
(4) I am interested in seeing how your argument is coherent in the real world, not just during the debate. I need to see how it would affect real people. 
 
(5) Respect. You should be respectful of your opponent, no matter what. I do not like seeing debaters gloat, at all. 
 
(6) Most debaters come up with new ways to formulate their arguments. I am interested in seeing what YOU are contributing to the art of debating. 
 
that's all, 
V.