I coach debate as an extracurricular, but I teach AP Lit during the day. Your ability to clearly communicate your argument is as important as the argument itself. Speed is fine, but spreading is ineffective.

Great logic is just as important as great evidence. Avoid card dumping.

If a convincing framework is not provided, I default to cost-benefit analysis. If you have a framework, be sure to explain why it's important.

Extend your arguments, please.

I will the flow the round. Please signpost.

If you must do an off-time road map to calm your nerves before you begin your actual speech, I get it. But it's really not necessary unless you're doing something atypical.

You guys have put a lot of work into preparing for this tournament, and you're now here on a Saturday working hard and putting yourselves out there. Regardless of how the round goes, you have earned my respect.

Jordan Berry - Loveless Academic Magnet Program High School

Hello!

I have been a coach and judge since 2015. Most debaters over the years categorize me as a traditional L/D judge. My chief weighing mechanism is usually framework (my undergraduate degree is in philosophy), but I can be persuaded to the contrary. I have no value hierarchy. I strive to keep personal views and ballot intervention away from my RFD. I will evaluate only those arguments brought up by the debaters.

Speed is an issue for me. This is primarily an education and communication activity. I highly doubt either Lincoln or Douglas themselves were spreading, and I've never seen spreading in any real-life situation aside from episodes of "Storage Wars." I do flow the round (though not cross), but "winning the flow" isn't the same as winning the round in some cases; this event is supposed to be persuasive and accessible, not a checklist of responses and replies. Thus, I always roll my eyes when one of my debaters complains about "lay" judges: in crafting a case/round, they should receive as much consideration as that ex-policy debater.

Other issues for me: do be respectful. Do engage meaningfully with the resolution. Do be honest. Do have fun.

Break a leg!

jordan.berry@mps.k12.al.us

P.S. All this extinction stuff is just debaters trolling, right?

SOOOOOOO TRAD.

1.Your background in debate (did you debate in high school or college? If so, where, when, and what events?)

I have taught communication/rhetoric for 10 years. I have coached debate for six.

2. How many years have you been judging? How many rounds do you typically judge each year?

I have been judging for 5 years. I normally judge 5 tournaments a year.

3. Do you have any argument preferences or speaking style preferences that debaters should be aware of?

I do not like spreading. I prefer straightforward arguments, but I do not mind more meta-arguments.

4. When the debate is over, what process do you use to pick a winner (use of evidence, direct clash, speaking style, impact calculations, layers of the debate, etc.)?

I assess the arguments laid out, consider evidence, speaking style, impact, and presentation.

Other thoughts:

-Don't be rude. I do not respond well to aggressive CX

-Signpost. I will be flowing and without clear signposting, I will have a difficult time doing so without those signposts.

-I like to see congenial debaters who are respectful of their opponents.

-Generally, arguments that devolve into debating the worth of a single piece of evidence or contention drawn out across multiple speeches do not interest me. Of course, this is not true if the evidence or contention is integral to the overall argument.

-I like seeing passion and emotion. I dislike dull recitals of speeches with a monotone voice. However, I equally dislike zealous, over-the-top speaking.

-Eye contact is important. I understand looking down to remind yourself of your points and structure, but do not like it when speakers stare at a piece of paper the whole time.

PF:

-Do not spread. On a scale of 1-10 for speed I prefer somewhere around 6-7. I would prefer you to slow down or pause a tad for taglines for my flow. Also if you list 4-5 short points or stats in quick succession, I probably will miss one or two in the middle if you dont slow down.

-Arguments you go for should appear in all speeches. If your offense was not brought up in summary, I will ignore it in FF.

-I do not think cross is binding. It needs to come up in the speech. I do not flow cross, and as a flow judge that makes decisions based on my flow, it won't have much bearing on the round.

-At the least I think 2nd rebuttal needs to address all offense in round. Bonus points for collapsing case and completely frontlining the argument you do go for.

-Please time yourselves. My phone is constantly on low battery, so I'd rather not use it. If you want to keep up with your opponents' prep too to keep them honest then go ahead.

-In terms of some of the more progressive things- I haven't actually heard theory in a PF round but I hear it's a thing now. If your opponent is being abusive about something then sure, let me know, either in a formal shell or informal. Don't run theory just to run it though. Obviously, counterplans and plans are not allowed in PF so just don't.

-pet peeves:

1) Bad or misleading evidence. Unfortunately this is what I am seeing PF become. Paraphrasing has gotten out of control. Your "paraphrased" card better be accurate. If one piece of evidence gets called out for being miscut or misleading, then it will make me call in to question all of your evidence. If you are a debater that runs sketchy and loose evidence, I would pref me very high or strike me.

2) Evidence clash that goes nowhere. If pro has a card that says turtles can breathe through their butt and con has a card saying they cannot and that's all that happens, then I don't know who is right. In the instance of direct evidence clash (or even analytical argumentation clash) tell me why to prioritize your evidence over theirs or your line of thinking over theirs. Otherwise, I will consider the whole thing a wash and find something else to vote on.

3) Not condensing the round when it should be condensed. Most of the time it is not wise to go for every single argument on the flow. Sometimes you need to pick your battles and kick out of others, or risk undercovering everything.

LD:
So first, I primarily judge PF. This means my exposure to certain argument types is limited. I LOVE actually debating the resolution. Huge fan. I'm cool with DAs and CPs. Theory only if your opponent is being overly abusive (so no friv). If you are a K or tricks debater good luck. I know about the progressive things but since I primarily judge PF, my ability to evaluate it is very limited from experience. If you want to go for a K or something, I won't instantly drop you and I will try my best to flow and evaluate it in the round. But you will probably need to tweak it a little, slow down, and explain more how it is winning and why I should vote for it. I come from a traditional circuit, so the more progressive the round gets, the less capable I am of making a qualified decision.

I do not want you to flash your case to me. I want to flow it. If you read to point that it is unflowable then it is your loss. If I don't flow it, I cannot evaluate it and thus, cannot vote on it. Spreading in my opinion is noneducational and antithetical to skills you should be learning from this activity. Sorry, in the real world and your future career, spreading is not an acceptable practice to convince someone and get your point across.

Both:
Please signpost/roadmap- I hate when it is unclear where you are and I get bounced around the flow. Have fun and don't be overly aggressive.

I am a second year Public Forum coach with the SpeakFirst team in Birmingham, Alabama.

In terms of speed, you can speak as fast as you'd like, but not so fast that I can't catch your contention taglines for my flow. I prefer well-organized constructives with sign posting and clear impacts. For weighing, I'd ideally like to be told how to weigh the round and not left to decide that for myself. I don't like getting into long framework battles, so if it comes to that it's better to concede to one framework or the other and show how you're winning on it.

I'm okay with off time roadmaps before rebuttal and summary as long as you have a reason for giving one, and I don't care if you sit or stand during crossfire as long as both sides do the same thing. I'll flow everything but crossfire. I'll only hold dropped arguments against you if they're extended by your opponent in summary.

I expect each side to keep their own time, but I'll be keeping it too with the exception of calling for cards - if you're calling for a card, please keep track and just tell me how much of your prep you used. Please don't vocally keep your opponent's time. Also, please don't talk/whisper to your partner during one of your opponent's speeches. Bottom line, be respectful and have fun!

2 year LD debater and 2 year PF debater for Vestavia Hills High school.

I prefer to see elaborate arguments rather than a bunch of small scattered points. It is important to the weigh impacts in order for me to pick the better argument. So if you spread, make sure you are clear. I will only judge based off of what I can understand. 

I mainly debated LD through high school though I have had a year of experience respectively in CX and PF. Spreading in LD and CX is fine as long as you are clear; in PF, it's fine to talk quickly, but please avoid policy-style spreading. 

I like the traditional style of debate, but am definitely receptive to other arguments as well! K affs, etc are fine with me in policy and LD-if you have questions about a particular argument type please ask! However, please don't run theory unless you believe there is a legitimate argument that abuse is occurring. I'll still listen to it otherwise, but I will not be happy about it!

Arguments I find most persuasive are impact calc and weighing against opponent's specific claims. Don't just tell me what your cards say when you extend-explain why they are important in answering the resolution and why they influence my ballot. 

*I find off-time roadmaps and signposting really helpful! Please, please, please do this. 

Affilliation: Vestavia Hills

I've judged for PF. I use to be be a PF and CX debater. 

Most important thing I'm looking for is the content of the arguments and impact arguments. Not a huge fan of Kritik arguments. I'm fine with people going faster than normal talking/PF speed but please don't use policy debate speed/spread- just be clear.