how to parametricize an LD resolution

One of the hot buzzwords cropping up in debates about the "environmental protection versus resource extraction" resolution is the matter of parametricization.

If your browser red-squiggly-underlines the word, like mine does, it's just as confused about parametricization as you are. And, even if you know what it means, you may not know the way to make parametricization fit within a traditional LD round.

Definition
Parametricization is fairly straightforward. A debater, usually the Aff, wants to limit the ground of the debate--how much she has to defend or advance--so she changes the parameters. For instance, rather than argue a general principle that the environment should be prioritized, the Aff specifies a particular country or issue--Niger's uranium extraction, for instance, or just uranium mining in general--and then talks about the benefits of affirming in that instance. This is often a straight-up plan; if not, it's a quasi-plan, discussed in terms of Util impacts and/or solvency.

The word comes out of Policy Debate theory, as LPNelson explains:

Parametric analysis when applied to debate makes the resolution a parameter for the debate and is what allows the affirmative team to choose one example of reform/change (thus creating the plan-focused debate we’re all familiar with) within the bounds of the resolution.

Contrast this with the traditional view of LD:

Resolution centered debate, however, is what you will see if you participate in things like Lincoln-Douglas or Public Forum debate. This is where instead of having plan-focused debate, ALL of the argumentation in the round is about whether or not the resolution as a whole should be affirmed or negated – meaning that all examples in the round need to be typical of the resolution in its entirety (which is why occasionally you’ll hear LDers accusing each other of “parametricizing” the resolution).

More on this problem later.

Justification
In progressive LD, many debaters will run parametricized cases without any additional warranting; however, in a traditional tournament, this is likely to meet with resistance. Some debaters use fairness as a warrant, claiming that the vastness of the topic literature makes it impossible to run a "general principle" case, while others claim that parametricizing is about the educational value of debating things as a policymaker, especially given the real-world context of the resolution. (This tactic seems less apt when the resolution is written more abstractly, such as, say, "Resolved: the spirit of the law ought to take precedence over the letter of the law," which isn't inherently specific to any nation, agent of action, or other context.)

Problems
This is where things get a little dicey for the parametricizer. Unless LD rids itself of the "general principle" language and the explicit prohibition of plans (the NSDA, formerly the NFL, says they're a no-no), then a parametricized case is dependent on judges who ignore or flout the rules.

Furthermore, a parametricized Aff won't clash with a general-principle Neg, a situation I saw develop several times in January. Beefing up mangroves for the potential solvency benefits offers little inherent defense against, say, a rights-based Neg talking about minerals, fish, and timber. This leads to three (or more)-pronged Neg attacks in the 1NR: a topicality theory shell, followed by a disad, followed by an alternate framework and case structure. Good luck defending all that in the 1AR.

A Proposed Solution
I think it's fair to parametricize within the traditional context of Lincoln-Douglas as long as the resolution can still be affirmed as a general principle, avoiding unnecessary topicality debates.

One is to consider the range, scope, and magnitude of impacts. For instance, in the environment vs. resource extraction resolution, it's empirically verified that among developing nations, China, India, Brazil, and Russia own a relatively large share of carbon emissions, due to their growing industrial output and larger populations. Secondly, the impact of carbon emissions is huge and potentially catastrophic. Thus, a Util-based argument focused largely on these four nations has enough of a potentially large impact to justify affirmation as a general principle, in a way that, in contrast, ending uranium mining in Niger can't--at least, not without tenuous link chains and the tactical disadvantages described above.

Another strategy is to include an argument for why a particular scenario is typical of a wider pattern, making the parametricization more of a "focal point." For instance, given the example of Niger above, it'd be easy for the Aff to spend a paragraph rhetorically linking the situation to a wider context, given that Niger isn't the only developing nation (or even the only African developing nation) to have problems with foreign corporations extracting critical resources. This strategy precludes Neg responses of "cherry-picking" or "hasty generalizations," as it functions more as a "case study." The weakness is, once again, the potential lack of clash against a more general Neg.

In sum, not all parameters are created equal, and there seems to be fair ways to carve up ground within the traditional rules, ethos, and style of Lincoln-Douglas debate.

Bonus Question
I recently heard a debater say, theoretically justifying her parametricization case, that 50% of the developing nations / environmental topic literature is about...

a. Brazil
b. China
c. Russia
d. India

Wrong. Uganda.

do the rules of LD actually matter?

This post is aimed at my Washington state colleagues, but you're welcome to read it, too. It's about something I first considered three years ago, when invited to Washington state's premier progressive debate tournament. Since then, the past has become the present, and the present keeps scrolling down to the future.

Where are we now?

We're at the point, when responding to a resolutional analysis based on interpretations of the NFL's Competition Events Guide--parallel burdens, burden of clash, burden of resolutionality, fairly banal, but necessary in these random times--a judge writes on the ballot, "I don't care about the LD rule book."

Now, I'm guessing this judge was oversimplifying for the sake of clarity, and wasn't advocating total adjudicative anarchy. The LD rule book, after all, is why we have prescribed times, and I haven't heard of any judges allowing Aff or Neg filibusters.

But... then... why not? If debate is about "fairness," defined nebulously and warranted empirically, and ultimately up to the interpretation of a judge with a 4000-word paradigm (no offense, Matt Z, just giving an example), and if the time skew is real, why not call for any given judge to throw out the standard times as a micropolitical solution?

The fact is, in varsity LD in these parts, the rules are becoming obsolete. (At least, until debate hipsters make the old school cool again.) At worst, they are unknown; at best, unenforced. Consider some of the rules for Washington State LD. For instance, when was the last time you heard a debater give a proper source citation?

b. The first time a particular piece of evidence or source is used, the speaker must give the author, publication, date of publication, and pages. Once the source/author is used in the round, then the citation may be shortened to author, page, and year.

Or did you know that...

Lincoln-Douglas debating encourages the development of a direct and communicative delivery style. Emphasis is placed upon the issues involved rather than strategy in developing the case. The statement of the topic is a RESOLUTION OF VALUE rather than of policy. This results in emphasizing logic, theory, and philosophy while eliminating "plan" arguments.

At the Puget Sound invitational, I was mildly surprised to hear a debater run "plans required" theory, which is about as opposite to their elimination as you can get. Never mind "tradition" or "ethos;" any time a Washington State judge votes for an LD plan, an angel gets its wings clipped.

Oh, and spreading? The WSFA isn't going to have it:

Because of the time limits, a wealth of evidence cannot be used, but research by good background reading is necessary.

No brightline, I know, but a principle that is as trendy as parachute pants.

My point isn't to defend the utility or justice of these particular rules, but to point out that they are actually rules.

That is, if we're going to enforce them.

We have two choices: we take the rules seriously and educate judges who don't know them or don't care about them, or we change the rules to fit the evolving event. As a coach concerned with educating his students and preparing them for success in LD, I'll adapt to either scenario. But both require change and commitment. We can't accept the status quo.

We have to care about the rule book.

a closer look at the LD time skew

What follows is an analysis of particular empirical evidence for the fabled "time skew" in Lincoln-Douglas debate.



The Context
I've heard several theory shells that rely heavily on time skew arguments, all sharing the same warrants. For the uninitiated, "time skew" is the idea that in LD, the Negative has an unfair time advantage in the 1NR--7 minutes to run all sorts of attacks, disads, theory shells, meta-ethics, a prioris, interpretive dances, killer bee swarms, whatever--that the Aff simply can't respond to in the 4 minute spittlefest known as the 1AR. Compound this with the 6 minute 2NR, and the measly 3-minute 2AR in response, and the modern LDer feels significantly cramped while affirming.

Often, the "fairness" portion of the shell's standard appeals to an empirical fact: at the Tournament of Champions in LD, the Negative has won over 50% of the ballots.

This, of course, raises all sorts of questions.

* Is this a historical trend, or the result from one tournament?
* If one, what was the resolution? Would its own presumptions and associated judge biases cause the skewed results?
* If it's an identifiable trend at the TOC, what is the root cause?
* Do judges have a contrarian bias that favors the Neg? (Good luck answering this one in a mere blog post.)
* What if it's abusive tactics that actually create the problem?

These questions, of course, presume that the statistic is true. Is it?

To find out, I crunched the numbers myself, because I'm the fact-checking sort.


Methodology
I used the 2011-2013 LD results, based on the first six rounds, presuming that this would provide an even number of Aff-Neg opportunities for each individual debater, with the exception of 2011, which had 8 rounds for each. I counted each by hand, double-checked, and then ran the results through a spreadsheet. I eliminated two 2013 ballots, as they were both forfeits, one on each side, which doesn't significantly alter the results or the conclusions. Of course, I didn't count byes.


Results
Out of 772 preliminary round ballots in the past 3 years of competition, 345 went for the Aff, or 44.7%. Negs took 427 ballots, or 55.4%.

Before we declare the skew to be real, we have to account for the margin of error. For a sample of this size, at a 99% confidence interval (i.e., only 1 in 100 results could be explained by pure chance), we would expect an error margin of +/- 4.57%.

Thus, the lowest "expected value" for the Aff is 368 ballots, or 47.7% of the total, while the highest is 404, or 52.3%. Any result within this range isn't far enough away to be anything but intriguing.

But the actual total, 345, is well below the range. Even being optimistic, the Aff has won only 94% of the times they "should have" won, while, at worst, they've won only 85% of the times they "should have" won at the TOC. (Consider also that the skew would be stronger in the 2012-13 tournaments, which went 7 rounds in prelims, as roughly half of the debaters had one extra round on the Neg.)


Interpretation
The time skew is statistically significant. The numbers indicate that at the TOC, the Neg picks up at anywhere from 1 to 3 extra ballots per round.

What causes the skew, though? The simplistic answer is the seeming structural disadvantage of the 1AR, described above. But this is a bit like saying, "Honda Civics built in the mid-1990s spend more time in the shop than other similar makes from that era, and are thus defective," when an equally plausible explanation is that that Honda Civics are preferred wheels for crazy drivers who YOLO their way through life / the Interstate Highway System.

In other words, the TOC's emphasis on progressive, spread-based tactics has potentially created the skew, whereas it may not be a problem in a more traditional form of LD.

We might be on firmer ground if we compared results to NFL tournament preliminary rounds to draw firmer conclusions. (Maybe that'll be the subject of a future post.)


Takeaways
First, never uncritically accept a statistic, even one as potentially intuitive as this one.

Second, if the timeskew is inherent--or, as TOC tactics are now mainstream in many regions, will eventually become ubiquitous, which at that point may as well mean it's inherent--then I propose a solution: 6 3 7 3 5 6 2. Give the Aff an extra minute to work with in the 1AR, and turn the 2AR into a voters-only speech. I think it's elegant, workable, and fair. (I typically have a high opinion of my own ideas.) I'd love to hear of a tournament trying it, and getting enough data to draw meaningful conclusions.

Third, if you're running a theory shell using the TOC data, here's an easy citation.

ANDERSON: "In the past three years, over 55% of TOC elimination-round LD ballots went to the Neg, a statistically significant advantage."

Fourth, if you're running against a similar theory shell, and wish to debate the point, here's another easy citation.

ANDERSON: "It is possible, and even likely, that spread tactics themselves are the root cause of the skew, which may not exist in more traditional LD clashes."

Hint: don't run this if you're the one who started the ruckus by spreading.

Meanwhile, I'll be speeding down the freeway in my tricked-out Civic. Or in the shop getting it fixed.

#YOLO?

LD mailbag: 1AR tactics and analytical warrants

Now that the postseason is winding down, it's time to focus primarily on general LD questions. The first concerns tactics in the first Affirmative rebuttal (1AR). A reader writes:

On the negative, all the reading I've done suggests limiting a case to 1-2 contentions. Some of my opponents, though, have negative cases with 3 contentions, 3-4 subpoints apiece. I understand the idea of prioritizing arguments when I'm aff, but when I don't address all of the subpoints explicitly in the 1AR, flow judges extend the individual subpoints and often vote on these "dropped" arguments. One thing I've tried is grouping subpoints under a main idea (e.g. group his contention 1 subpoints because they all pertain to how PMFs aren't accountable), but this is often too general a response. How can I avoid this dilemma in the 1AR?

There are a few ways to handle this.

1. If you know you have a flow judge who can handle speed, go faster and hit every subpoint, even if only with a blippy argument. This may be better than the phantom "drops."

2. Effective grouping may depend on which way you're addressing your opponent's argument. Are you actually taking down the whole argument at once, logically speaking, or just claiming that you are because you think it's necessary?

For instance, consider an opponent who argues:

C1: Private Military Firms (PMFs) are necessary for military operations
a) Speed
b) Flexibility
c) Staffing
d) Superior Resources

If you group and try to argue that PMFs aren't necessary because we could always institute a draft, in a way you've taken out the whole contention, but you haven't really addressed its logic. A draft defeats warrant (c), but doesn't compete with (a), (b), or (d). So your opponent could legitimately argue that you've dropped 3 out of 4 warrants, and her point still stands.

If you group and try to argue that PMFs are both morally abhorrent and that overstretch is good because it limits US military foreign adventuring, now you have two reasons to dismiss the entirety of the contention without even addressing its warrants--first, that moral considerations trump practical considerations, and secondly, a retort or "turn" that actually provides you with offense.

3. The problem with drops is asymmetric, since you lack the time in the 1AR to dismiss your drops as irrelevant or insignificant (if you're taking the "bigger picture" approach), yet your opponent has time to extend and impact those drops. So, if you're in front of a flow judge, you might try this: at the end of your 1AR, say something to effect of, "In her next speech the Neg is going to point out that I've dropped several inconsequential subpoints. In my closing, I'll crystallize the round and explain exactly why those drops don't matter." In that way, you've prepared the judge for your approach.

It may be risky, but it's better than leaving the drops for the judge to deal with in the absence of any direction from you--and with plenty of prompting by your opponent!

Let's move on to a couple of questions about evidence.

My second question is regarding the justifications behind a source. I've found that judges in my state often respond much better to studies/statistics over analysis from a professor/expert, but I know that expert analysis is definitely valuable. How do I respond to claims that "just because a professor says it, it isn't true"? Do I just need to better understand my evidence, or is there some argument I can make to save my analytical warrants?

Your opponent may be correct about the potential dubiousness of expert opinion--but if a professor's expertise and analysis are dubious, what about the analysis of a high school student? Ad hominem is a nonstarter. Instead, argue that your opponent hasn't actually addressed the logic of the analysis, which stands or falls on its own. (Decry the "ad hominem" attack and call it out as a fallacy if necessary.) And besides, the so's-your-old-man to the statistical card is "Figures lie and liars figure." Evidence battles, unless there are good reasons to doubt the evidence, are pretty boring and obnoxious to most judges.

I have one more question for you after going over some recent flows. One of my opponents spewed a lot of evidence at me in one of my debates, but they didn't actually READ said evidence...they paraphrased in 1-2 sentences and provided a brief citation at the end. Call I call them out on that, or is that allowed?

This is a gray, foggy area. Academics do this all the time--and it's quite likely that the cards being cited by debaters in rounds are actually footnoted paraphrases themselves! But without a direct source, we have to hold it in faith that our opponent isn't cherry-picking, card-stacking, context-ripping, or improperly summarizing. That's quite a leap, and it's fair in cross-ex to ask for a direct citation for any "evidence" that sounds too good to be true. But only for evidence that sounds unreasonable or dubious. Otherwise you'll sound like a nit-picker, which is the cardinal sin of evidence-challenging.

When writing your own case, use direct quotations whenever feasible.

If your opponent is doing something genuinely abusive, and you're sure you can convince the judge on this point, then make it a voting issue.

Debaters are encouraged to submit their examples, tactics, or questions regarding the above scenarios.

the next evolution of LD debate

This past Sunday, I was fortunate to be invited to the 2011 Northwest Round Robin. Eight of the region's sharpest LDers dueled in six rounds of high-octane debate. Sonia Vora (Annie Wright School) and Nick Blanchette (Mercer Island) were declared co-champions, and, from what I saw, deservedly so.

I attended not just as a judge, but as a learner, having fallen behind LD's progressive evolution in the past couple years. It was simultaneously exhausting and energizing to watch the debates, and learn from pros like VBI's Becca Traber and Wesley Craven, whose enthusiasm for the activity is infectious. I felt like the dumbest person in the room, and it was--how do I say it?--awesome.

It's got me thinking: where does the event go from here? Policy-influenced speed and argumentation have fully arrived in Washington state, and are apparently here to stay. It's time we figured out how to handle the changes so that LD doesn't discourage involvement by newcomers, including parents and community members. (It's tough enough to get judges; do we really want to limit our options to former LDers and PhDs in rhetoric or political science?) I want LD to be challenging, not forbidding.

At the very least, the Washington State Debate Tournament rules would need to be updated. Right now, not only are plan-based arguments forbidden, but, arguably, so is card-heavy argumentation, and by implication, extreme speed:

In Lincoln-Douglas Debate, only two speakers are involved: One fulfilling the affirmative case responsibilities and the other, the negative case responsibilities. Lincoln-Douglas debating encourages the development of a direct and communicative delivery style. Emphasis is placed upon the issues involved rather than strategy in developing the case. The statement of the topic is a RESOLUTION OF VALUE rather than of policy. This results in emphasizing logic, theory, and philosophy while eliminating "plan" arguments. Because of the time limits, a wealth of evidence cannot be used, but research by good background reading is necessary.

[emphasis added]

Second, we could create a stricter Novice / Open distinction as a way to ensure strong grounding in the foundations of the event. For instance, in Novice Policy debate in Washington, case areas are limited to an agreed-upon list, while counterplans and kritiks are disallowed.

In Novice LD, I'd suggest ruling out...

*Plans / Counterplans / Permutations
*Kritiks (this wouldn't preclude all critical arguments, provided they fit into a standard V/C framework)
* A priori arguments
* Straight Refutation Negs
* Cases without frameworks
* Theory shells

Abusive arguments could be handled as a "point of order" after the conclusion of the debate. (Hopefully the limitations, combined with effective judging, would limit abuse.)

These are half-baked ideas, and I'm curious what you think. LDers and fans of the event, especially among my Washington state readership, how would you go about changing the activity? Or what do you see as the future of LD debate?

how to be a better parent... judge

(A work in progress. Suggestions, questions, and criticisms are welcomed in the comments.)

As a debate coach, I spend at least half my job on email and the phone. I'm either wrangling drivers or judges--or both--ensuring that my team can get to the tournament, and when they do, that we can start and finish within spitting distance of "on time."

Like a lot of coaches, I depend on my team's parents to help judge. In December and January, former students come back from college and help out, but when Winter Quarter revs back up, they disappear back into their halcyon world. Hiring judges is sometimes a possibility, but you know how it goes: times are tough all over, and the money's tight.

Parents fill in the gap, and admirably so. But often new parents are intimidated by the activity, with its strange conventions and obscure jargon, with its conceptual and contextual complexity, and, perhaps most important, with its overwhelming nerdiness. Parents, thus, when thrown into their first debate tournament, can be just as nervous about the experience as the greenest novice debater. (Green is sometimes the literal color, sadly.)

I offer training to my judges. But what happens in a pinch, when there's little to no time for preparation? What's a rookie judge to do?

Here's my advice.

If you have time to prepare before the round:

Study the rules of the event. Read a judging guide, if available. (This is a useful resource, with rules overviews, judging guides, and more.)

Ask what the resolution is. If you have time and resources, do a little reading to familiarize yourself with the topic. (If it's an LD resolution, chances are, you'll find this blog via Google. Welcome!) Think about your personal perspective on the issue. What are your biases? Be upfront with yourself: that means you'll have to be extra-cautious about being fair to both sides.

When the round is about to begin, the debaters might ask you what your "paradigm" is. What they often mean:

• How experienced are you? (Tell them, so they can adapt.)
• Are you more convinced by empirical evidence (facts and statistics), logic / reasons / philosophical arguments, rhetoric / persuasive style, or a balance of the above? (That's for you to consider and decide.)
• How comfortable are you with speed? (Tell them to slow down and make eye contact to make sure you're following them.)
• Do you understand theoretical arguments? (Unless you know what this means, tell them to keep it straightforward.)

Give time signals (counting down). Make a "C" for 30 seconds left, then count down 5-4-3-2-1 in seconds. When tracking prep time, announce it every 30 seconds ("30 seconds used... 1 minute used...")


If you're in a "let's see if the bus driver can judge Open LD" situation:

Ask if you can watch the first flight instead of judging, which may be possible, and may save everyone a lot of grief.

If it's not, and you're pressed into emergency duty, remain calm. Read over the ballot for instructions. Check for times, including the amount of prep time.

Most important: tell the competitors you're a first-time judge, and so you'll need them to help walk you through the round, and to avoid jargon whenever possible, and to signpost. (Even if you don't know what "signpost" means, they will.)

Take notes, or "flow."  I use a two-page system, with the Aff (with rebuttals, etc.) on one sheet and the Neg case (etc.) on the other. I write down any prep time used / remaining on one of the sheets.  I don't flow Cross-Examination (or the crossfire), expecting debaters to refer to those discussions in later rebuttals.

When filling out the ballot:

Offer helpful comments about the debaters' speaking skills / style.  Be specific and constructive.  If you can't suggest an improvement, that's fine; praise what you saw / heard.

Give speaker points when it's expected.

The most important piece, from the debaters' and coach's perspective: write a reason for your decision. Be as specific as you can ("The affirmative had superior evidence about the increasing crime rate due to plea bargaining," rather than "The affirmative had better evidence.")

Fill out the ballot in a timely fashion--usually no more than 15 minutes after the end of the round. Get it back to the ballot table as soon as possible: the tournament's on-time status depends on it!

In the end, don't worry: you're one out of the 6 judges they'll see, so if you mess up, it's not the end of the world. Ultimately, if they're good enough debaters, they should be able to adapt to you, and if you give your best, they'll have no reason to complain.

In fact, they had better thank you for judging. As a coach, I certainly do!




Thanks to the anonymous commentator who prompted this post.

how to deal with judges

By Guest-Blogger Bri Castellini

most applicable to Public Forum and traditional LD debate

My dad hates watching gymnastics and figure skating during the Olympics because it bothers him that judges make the final call, and at times those calls can seem arbitrary or unfair. But as debaters we’ve had to accept that our judges ultimately hold our fate in their hands, and often have to change the way we debate in order to facilitate these judges. But there are so many different kinds of judges, it’s hard to keep track. So I’ve made you a list of the kinds of judges you’ll likely run into and how to deal.

The Confused but Kindly Parent: This poor specimen is only here as a favor to their student, or a student’s friend. They’re the ultimate novice, and usually have no idea what to expect. So make sure you don’t use jargon (debate-speak like “flow” and “cross-apply”). Other tips: be polite, because this judge is intimidated enough, be painstakingly organized, because this judge won’t have had flow experience, and speak slowly and confidently, because if you’re confident in your arguments, they will be, too.

The CX-er: This judge normally judges policy debate (or CX, as we called it in Colorado), and so they’ll probably start off the round looking extra bored. See, my experience with CX judges, and CX debaters in general, is that they believe their form of debate is the best kind there is.  If it’s not spoken at fifteen miles per hour with 80 different sources from the past two weeks, it’s boring. But. This is not an excuse to speed talk. Your cases will not be geared for CX speed. But don’t be afraid to be a little more aggressive if the debate calls for it. CX judges aren’t as sensitive to it. Feel free to use as much jargon as you need, but make sure you can back up every assertion you make with legitimate sources.

Seasoned Veteran: This judge is usually a coach, an ex-coach, or someone who has judged for several years. Don’t BS with this judge. They will know. Again, feel free to use jargon, but don’t overdo it. Also, don’t try to charm them (which often works with the “Confused Parent”, see above), because they won’t fall for it.

Flow Judge- This judge makes decisions almost entirely based on their flow. So the biggest thing to remember is be organized, even more painstakingly organized than for the Confused Parent. When you make an argument, tell this judge exactly where you want it applied on the flow. Example: “My opponent’s 2^nd contention is ____ and I have _____ to say about it.” Also, these judges are extra sensitive to dropped points, or points you miss/ignore. So make sure you have at least something to say about every main point your opponent has

Question-Flow Judge- Apply all tips from the Flow Judge, but add this: During crossfire, keep clarification questions to a minimum. This is your chance to directly confront your opponent, and this judge will be paying specific attention, so don’t waste this opportunity.

The Politician- This judge isn’t actually a politician. They’re the judges that have a very strong political leaning and tend to agree with whichever debater is most closely defending their point of view, regardless of who is making better arguments. So if you find yourself on the opposite of their beliefs, your case had better be rock solid. Spend most of your time attacking you opponent’s case, punching holes in every weak spot. Planting even the slightest inkling of doubt in this judge’s mind may make all the difference.

The Recently Graduated Former Competitor- You might even know this judge personally from previous years, but if not, don’t fret. Knowing what they competed in will be of the utmost importance. If they did PF, they’ll be most sensitive to legitimate sources and logical arguments. If they did LD, they’ll want a solid value/criterion pair. If they did CX, I’m so sorry. Just do your best. And if they did Interp events, they want something fun and exciting. So don’t be afraid to make dramatic statements (if you can back them up even a little), and don’t worry so much about being “professional”. Joke, smile, laugh, and be merry, but don’t forget you’re here to make a point.

The Expert- Often, coaches will know people who are experts in current debate topics and ask them to come judge. If they give oral critiques, their feedback can be priceless. But be very careful the assertions and links you make with the topic. Just like with the Seasoned Veteran, BS will not fly, so don’t even bother.

The Sulk- This judge might also fall under the “CX” judge category, but it might also just be a random community member or teacher that hasn’t seen any good debates so far and isn’t impressed with the turnout. So I only have three tips for you: use voice inflection to keep them from being lulled to sleep by your monotone, ask smart, direct questions during crossfire, and for God’s sake, don’t be stupid.

Other general tips for dealing with any judge:

1. Talk distinctly and confidently, but don’t rush. You’ve got plenty of time. 
2. Ask your judge for their paradigms (what the judge looks for in the round) 
3. Be polite. I don’t care how frustrating your opponent is. Keeping your cool looks good to any judge. And smile, girls especially. When boys get aggressive, no one cares, but when girls do, we’re immediately labeled as a word that isn’t very nice. As my old coach always says, “kill them with kindness.”
4. Even if the judge is a novice, don’t patronize them. They don’t have to know you’re dumbing it down for them. 
5. Don’t pull the “my honorable judge” crap. No adjectives. Just call them “judge”, or I will personally hunt you down. 
6. Don’t move around too much. No pen tapping or feet shuffling, and for goodness sake, don’t walk around to the front of the podium and approach the judge’s table during your speech. Also, don’t sit in front of the table for your final constructive. Leave your pompous habits outside. 
7. Don’t talk or make angry noises during your opponent’s speech. You get your own time to respond. It looks unprofessional, and what are you, five? 
8. Clarify time signals (or the lack thereof) before your first speech. I have been screwed over more times than I can count because I forgot this. 
9. Be organized. Otherwise, no one knows what’s going. 
10. Be tactful. My old PF partner lost us a round, at state no less, because of inadvertent racism. (Remind me to tell you that story sometime) 

Bri Castellini is a college IPDA debater, blogger, and denizen of Twitter.