For email chains: danbagwell@gmail.com

I was a Policy debater at Samford / GTA at Wake Forest, now an assistant coach at Mountain Brook. I’ve increasingly moved into judging PF and LD, which I enjoy the most when they don’t imitate Policy.

I’m open to most arguments in each event - feel free to read your theory, critiques, counterplans, etc., as long as they’re clearly developed and impacted. Debate is up to the debaters; I'm not here to impose my preferences on the round.

All events

• Speed is fine as long as you’re clear. Pay attention to nonverbals; you’ll know if I can’t understand you.

• Bad arguments still need answers, but dropped args are not auto-winners – you still need to extend warrants and explain why they matter.

• If prep time isn’t running, all activity by all debaters should stop.

• Debate should be fun - be nice to each other. Don’t be rude or talk over your partner.

Public Forum

• I’m pretty strongly opposed to paraphrasing evidence - I’d prefer that debaters directly read their cards, which should be readily available for opponents to see. That said, I won’t just go rogue and vote on it - it’s still up to debaters to give convincing reasons why that’s either a voting issue or a reason to reject the paraphrased evidence. Like everything else, it’s up for debate.

• Please exchange your speech docs, either through an email chain or flash drive. Efficiency matters, and I’d rather not sit through endless prep timeouts for viewing cards.

• Extend warrants, not just taglines. It’s better to collapse down to 1-2 well-developed arguments than to breeze through 10 blippy ones.

• Anything in the Final Focus should be in the Summary – stay focused on your key args.

• Too few teams debate about evidence/qualifications – that’s a good way to boost speaks and set your sources apart.

Lincoln-Douglas

• I think LD is too often a rush to imitate Policy, which results in some messy debates. Don’t change your style because of my background – if you’re not comfortable (or well-practiced) spreading 5 off-case args, then that’s not advisable.

• If your value criterion takes 2+ minutes to read, please link the substance of your case back to it. This seems to be the most under-developed part of most LD rounds.

• Theory is fine when clearly explained and consistently extended, but I’m not a fan of debaters throwing out a ton of quick voters in search of a cheap shot. Things like RVIs are tough enough to win in the first place, so you should be prepared to commit sufficient time if you want theory to be an option.

Policy

[Quick note: I've been out of practice in judging Policy for a bit, so don't take for granted my knowledge of topic jargon or ability to catch every arg at top-speed - I've definitely become a curmudgeon about clarity.]

Counterplans/theory:

• I generally think limited condo (2 positions) is okay, but I've become a bit wary on multiple contradictory positions.

• Theory means reject the arg most of the time (besides condo).

• I often find “Perm- do the CP” persuasive against consult, process, or certainty-based CPs. I don’t love CPs that result in the entire aff, but I’ll vote on them if I have to.

• Neg- tell me how I should evaluate the CP and disad. Think judge kick is true? Say it. It’s probably much better for you if I’m not left to decide this on my own.

Kritiks:

• K affs that are at least somewhat linked to the resolutional controversy will fare the best in front of me. That doesn't mean that you always need a plan text, but it does mean that I most enjoy affirmatives that defend something in the direction of the topic.

• For Ks in general: the more specific, the better - nuanced link debates will go much farther than 100 different ways to say "state bad".

• Framework args on the aff are usually just reasons to let the aff weigh their impacts.

Topicality:

• Caselists, plz.

• No preference toward reasonability or competing interps - just go in depth instead of repeating phrases like "race to the bottom" and moving on.

I debated public forum for four years in high school and currently coach public forum. I frequently judge PF and LD and am fine with speed so long as you are not spreading.

Affiliated with Centennial High School in Frisco, Texas.

Pretty traditional in terms of argument style and content. Don't run anything too weird, and make sure you can explain your arguments clearly and simply without having to rely on debate jargon.

Speed: Clarity above all. Anything more than slightly faster than conversational means I probably won't catch it. Spread at your own risk, but I don't recommend it in front of me.

Time yourselves, and keep track of your own prep time.

Please impact your arguments-- tell me why they matter, and tell me why I should vote for you in your last rebuttal. Organization is also important: number your arguments/responses when you can because it helps with flowing.

Road maps and signposting is good.

I am a former PF debater and a current PF/LD coach. I have a degree in Communication Studies with a specialization in rhetoric, therefore, I put a lot of emphasis on logos, ethos, and pathos in a round. Eye contact, good body language, and a generally positive demeanor go a long way with me-- debate is fun and you should enjoy these experiences. I do not approve of spreading (especially just to seem competitive or because you think it's what you're supposed to do) because when debaters spread, they tend to lose sight of the persuasive nature of the debate as an activity and an exercise in professionalism. I am a flow judge so please be sure to extend arguments thoughtfully (e.g. don't tell me to extend an argument without any logic behind it). Signposting and off-time roadmaps are really helpful for me as a judge since I do refer to the flow quite a bit for judging purposes.

I competed in speech and debate for all four years of high school. My first year I competed in Individual Events: Prose, Impromptu and After Dinner Speaking. The remaining three years, I competed in Lincoln Douglass debate. I was a traditional style debater; however, I am able to flow most argument styles. 

Specifics about judging will be provided upon request. 

Kai He

1 year Policy debater for Vestavia Hills High School

3 year LD debater for Vestavia Hills High School

I like to see a solid connection between evidence and reasoning for each of the debate's arguments. I also like to see the debaters pick their best arguments to go off of, not just as many arguments as they can make. This allows me to see that the debater has full grasp over the topic.

Spreading is fine as long as the speaking is clear. I can't flow something I can't understand or hear.

John Koo

Debate experience: I did 4 years of LD and Congress in high school (Montgomery Academy)

PF: I know exactly what this debate format is so you don't have to worry that I was mostly an LDer.

Most important thing: be civil. Especially in CX, I know you want to ask and answer, but unless your opponent is simply wasting time, be respectful.

Evidence: Evidence is really key. If you have a lot of cards in your case, please organize them in the proper format and citations. If your opponents or I want to see them, please have them readily available for checking. Unfairly cut or misused cards will immediately be thrown away along with the round.

Signpost: Guide me through the flow. I don't want to search my way through my flow to find what you're talking about. It's more beneficial for you to tell me exactly where to look and what to write, so I have more time to think and analyze what you're saying.

LD:

I like a pretty balanced framework debate. That does not mean you simply focus on your values and never tell me why they are important. Show me direct relations of your criterion to your value, and why your contentions reflect those values. I'm pretty knowledgeable about philosophy and any value that you may use, but if you're doing something unorthodox, remember to explain it well to me.

I think structure is extremely important to debate. Yes getting all the information out is good, but be organized with it.

So:

Signpost. Especially in your 2ARs/1NRs, go down the flow. Tell me where I am supposed to be looking at. Although the same topic, every debate round is different. Tell me where exactly your argument works. Tell me where your opponent's argument doesn't work. I will only judge what you say in the round. I don't assume anything.

Speed. From years of debate on many different levels, I have learned to handle any type of speed. However, always keep in mind that I may miss something you say if you go extremely fast or are unclear. I know especially in those 2ARs there is a lot of information you want to tell me, but please try to be calm and collected.

Arguments. I know CPs, Ks, DisAds, Theories, etc... Thoroughly explain to me why something or your opponent is abusive if you believe that. Although I always leave my personal beliefs out of judging, I am going to try and protect those from a very abusive CP. I will be somewhat biased there when I can see a clear misuse.

Overall, ask if you have any other questions or preferences you want to know. Please be respectful to your opponent. That is the most important thing, and have a good debate round.

Experience-

Lay parent judge. Judged for three years at local tournaments.

Speed-

I’d prefer that you don’t spread. If thats your style, then go for it but if I don’t get something in the case its on you. Also, slow down for tag lines and author names if possible.

Framing-

Its probably best if your framing is something consequentialist. You can go for philosophical args or narrow frameworks but it needs to be explained more. On framework weighing, I like for there to be offensive reasons to prefer the framework rather than just giving defense to the other persons and saying yours is “moral.” Depending on the framework, you should probably give an explanation of which arguments can and cant be evaluated under it or you’re just going to be wasting your time. Show what arguments weigh the most under the framework and which cant be evaluated.

Casing-

I need some way to weigh between impacts. Tell me how to evaluate the round or I just have two contentions that have no clear winner. Clear voters at the end are also insanely nice and help on weighing between args.

Incase you feel the need to run circuit args-

T- Ill buy it if the aff has some extreme interp of the resolution. It really is more of a reasonability thing, though. If its a traditional round, it doesn’t need to be in shell format.

theory- It needs to be actual abuse to warrant theory. Much of the stuff on T is the same here.

DA- yea, sure. Im more of truth over tech. This doesn’t mean you cant go for nuke args, especially since this topic links to them pretty easily, but it does mean there should be work done on the link.

CP- go for it. There needs to be a net benefit though.

K- probably not the best thing to go for unless its cap. The link and alt need to be extremely clear.

Speaks-

I average between 27-30. A 29 is an expectation that you’ll break and a 30 means it was probably the best round I judged. Anything significantly lower than a 27 means you probably did something immoral (ie. arguing racism good).

Jokes can boost speaks. Especially if you’re in a round you feel is not winnable, you can still make it fun.

KAVITA PERSAUD
Judge Paradigm TRADITIONAL JUDGE

Background:
Current Debate Coach at Cape Fear Academy
Coaching High School Debate 2008-2013, 2015- current
Former High School Debater, Parliamentary Debate
Physician.

Philosophy:
Debate is an educational activity.
Debate is about communication.

Likes:
1. Debating the resolution
2. Advocacy of a position
3. Framework
4. Structure & Organization with clear sign-posting
5. Clash
6. Strategic Cross-Ex
7. Engaging Speaking Style
8. Courtesy
9. Crystallization and Weighing
10. Voting Issues

Dislikes:
1. Spreading
2. Non-topical Debates
3. Generic Kritiks
4. Theory unless clear abuse
5. Tricks
6. Rudeness
7. Extinction Impacts when not truly topical
8. Poorly selected evidence or improperly cited evidence
9. Jargon
10.

Please ask additional questions before the round.

Updated for 2023-2024 Season

Please put me on the speech thread! Thank you.

Email: thelquinn@gmail.com

Titles: Director of Debate at Samford University (AL).

Meta-thoughts:

I’m not the smartest human. You’re maybe/likely smarter than me. Please do not assume I know anything you are talking about. And I would honestly love to learn some new things in a debate about arguments you researched.

Debaters are guilty until proven innocent of clipping cards. I follow along in speech docs. I believe it is judges job to police clipping and it is unfair to make debaters alone check it. I will likely say clear though, it's nothing personal.

I keep a running clock and "read along" with speech docs to prevent clipping. At the end of the round, I find myself most comfortable voting for a team that has the best synthesis between good ethos, good tech/execution, and good evidence. I will not vote on better evidence if the other team out debates you, but I assign a heavy emphasis on quality evidence when evaluating competing arguments, especially offensive positions.

Education/Debate Background:

Wake Forest University: 2011-2015. Top Speaker at ADA Nationals my Junior Year. 2x NDT First-Round Bid at Wake Forest. 2x NDT Octofinalist. 2x Kentucky Round Robin. Dartmouth Round Robin. Pittsburgh Round Robin.

Mountain Brook High School: 2007-2011. 3x TOC Qualifier. 2011 Winner of Emory's Barkley Forum in Policy Debate. Greenhill and Harvard Round Robin. Third Place at NSDA Nationals in 2011. Seventh Place NSDA Nationals 2010. Winner of Woodward JV Nationals.

Policy Thoughts:

Tl;dr: Offense/defense, the algorithm, cards are currency. UQ determines link unless otherwise said. Willing to pull the trigger on T/theory.

Flow: Most debaters should make analytics off their flows, especially in digital debate. Conversely, if you include analytics on your speech doc but I do not find you clear but I recognize where you are on your speech doc, I will not consider them arguments.

Condo: Im largely ok with conditionality. I think the best aff args against conditional are against contradictory conditional options. I do not really like the counter-interp of dispo. Im a much bigger fan of CI is non-contradictory conditional options.

• 3 or less non contradictory conditional options is ok to me
• 2 contra condo is fine
• 3 contradictory condo (including a K) and I am willing to vote on contra condo bad.
• For new affs, I think at most 5 contra condo is permissive. Anymore and I think you risk losing on theory.
• I think negs should take the 2 seconds it takes to have a CI that isn't "what we did." "What we did" is not really a good CI in debates.

CP Theory: If the 2AC straight turns your disad, no amount of theory will justify a 2NC CP out of/around the straight turned DA. 2NC CP's vs addons are different and chill/encouraged. Generic Process/ Conditions/ consult CPs cause me to lean aff on theory/perm, unless you have a good solvency advocate specific to their plan text which can prove its predictable and important for that area of debate. But I’m persuaded that a generic/predictable aff posted on the wiki can win a theory debate/perm do CP against a generic process/ conditions/ consult CPs. This is especially true with any Con Con CP. Con Con is the worst.

I hate judge kick. Do you want me to flow for you too? Maybe compose your speech doc while you're at it? I don't give the affirmative random permutations. Don't make me kick your trash counterplan for you.

T: My "favorite" standards are predictable limits (debatability) and real-world context (literature/education). I think a topicality interp that has both of those standards I will err on. Evidence that is both inclusive and exclusive is the gold standard. I tend to be more moderate with reasonability. I am not in the cult of limits. I err aff if I believe your interpretation is "reasonable" and that the negative did not prove you made debate impossible even if their interpretation is slightly better.

Kritikal Debate. I vote off the flow, which means my opinions on K debate are secondary to my voting. And I was 4-0 for Wake BD last year in some big debates against policy teams, so I'm going to vote for the team that I thought did the better debating (But are you Wake BD?). Im not really opposed to kritiks on the negative that are tied to the plan/resolution or kritikal affirmatives that defend a topical plan of action. I think where I draw the line is that I'm not a good judge for more performance based "affirmatives/negatives" that neither affirm nor negate the plan text/resolution. I lean very heavily neg on FW v non or anti-topical K affs. I think a good topical version of the affirmative is the best argument on FW. The role of the judge is to vote for the team who does the better debating. Debate is an educational game we play on the weekend with friends. I will not evaluate arguments that derive from actions/events out of the debate I am judging. Fairness is an impact and intrinsically good. I do not believe the ballot has material power to change the means of production/structures and thinking it does may even be problematic.

Please do not read global warming good. Global warming is real and will kill us all. And I am particularly persuaded by the argument that introducing these arguments in debate is unethical for spreading propaganda and should be deterred by rejecting the team. I'm way more persuaded by inevitability and alt cause args.

I debated for 3 years in high school primarily on the local circuit but went to some national circuit tournaments. I now have been helping out as an assistant coach at Auburn for about a year.

Do whatever during the rounds. Sit, stand, roll over, whatever.

I will call for evidence at the end of the round and if I find that you have miscut or misleading evidence, I WILL DROP YOU with low speaks. I've seen it more times than I'd like and I feel like it's my duty as a judge to stop it somehow.

Generally most speed is fine. I’m not a fan of high speed, just cause it makes me work harder. Clarity >>>> speed though. I’ll yell clear twice but afterwards I’ll just put my pen down to let you know you need to be clear. However, if you want perfect speaks, beat your spreading opponent with slow speech.

I’m a big sucker for util debates and love all the weighing and links that result. It’s been a few years since I’ve read any LD philosophical literature, so if you’re running an esoteric “-ism,” be sure to explain it well or I won’t understand it.

Disads: see “big sucker for util debates.” If you wanna run something crazy, please do. I love that stuff.

Kritiks: see esoteric “-ism.” Also, if your K has no alternative I won’t weigh it in the round. I also don’t like affirmative K’s.

Theory: This may be a bit controversial, but I have a high threshold for theory for two reasons. First, no one likes to play games with someone who just whines about the rules the whole time. Second, I think theory is sometimes used as a crutch to avoid substantive debate. Now, if there is actual abuse in the round, feel free to run theory. I’ll flow it and vote on it. But if you run a shell on how your opponent must disclose their AC on some website, buyer beware.

Reading that, it should come as no surprise to you that I default to reasonability. I think theory is probably drop the debater, since if there is actual abuse, you should probably lose. Also, RVIs are probably good to discourage frivolous theory.