I am a former attorney and former assistant debate coach for LD. In all cases of judging, however, I prefer sound arguments that are clearly and concisely communicated.

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.

Put me in email chains or feel free to email me questions: JamieSuzDavenport@Gmail.com

I probably need to do an overhaul of my paradigm; it will likely not happen until I'm out of grad school. Seriously just AMA if it will help you going into the round.

Experience:

MPA-MSES @ IU Dec ’23, hoo hoo hoo Hoosiers. GA since '21. Please note this is an environmental science degree. I have a very low tolerance for climate denial or global warming good and would recommend not going for those args.

BA: IR, Fr, Arabic @ Samford, May ’20, ruff ‘em, CX and novice coaching

HS: LD in GA, ‘16

Misc

A note: I won't read cards unless instructed or seeking clarity (and if this is the case, I will be grumpy). All comments will be typed in the ballot and am open to questions immediately following the round and via email afterward. I do my best not to intervene or let personal biases cloud my judgment. I do have a deep appreciation for friendly competition and will generally be happier while giving out speaks or making decisions if I think the people in the round embodied that spirit. Conversely, am not afraid to have a come-to-Jesus meeting for unnecessary antagonism.

For eTournaments: I'll need a little more time than normal to adjust to your style of speaking/spreading because online anything gets tricky. Try to keep that in mind for your speeches so my ears can adjust. I'll default to having my camera on.

Zoom debate: PLEASE double-check your mic settings so that background noise suppression is not on. Zoom decides that spreading is background noise and it messes with the audio.

Overall:

Do what you want. I'm pretty go-with-the-flow and will try to adapt to what the round is versus making you adapt to me. The main thing to consider with me is my personal debate experience and potential knowledge gaps because of it. I'm not a great judge for high theory because I simply don't get it and it takes more explaining for me to understand and take it seriously (@ Baudrillard, semio-cap, etc.). There's some k lit that I'm not fully versed in but I try to keep current on major issues. Otherwise go nuts but make good choices.

2AR/NR: I more and more find myself telling debaters to tell me a story so I think I should put it in here. Whether you're going for a K, FW, DAs, extinction - whatever - start the speech telling me what your scenario is and why it's preferable to the other team. This is especially true if going for a perm or in a KvK debate, having a nuanced explanation clearly at the top of the speech frames the rest of the lbl and interactions you go for.

This was formerly organized by each event that I judge but that was getting unmanageable and ugly. If you have specific questions about anything event-specific or otherwise, just email or ask before the round starts.

Theory

Topicality/FW - I'll default that fairness is k2 education – if you want a different standard to be my primary metric, just tell me to do the thing. Might need more explanation of how I can apply the standard but that’s mostly for the atypical ones. Err on the side of over-explaining everything. Please please please explain your (counter)interp and what standards I should apply to favor yours - if there are a bunch of standards, which one do I evaluate first? Why? To reiterate: err on the side of over-explaining everything.

Fiat - I'll imagine it's real for policy v policy debates but more than willing to be sus of it, just tell me why.

Condo – dispo is an archaic interp and I think you can get better offense from other brightlines (2, what they did minus 1, etc.). I’ll vote on dispo but it’ll take more for you to win it than you need to do. Generally, think condo gets to its extremes when in the 3-4+ area, but new affs could change that yadda yadda, do what you want.

Other theory – whatever, just make the interp/counter-interp clear and tell me what to do with it.

RVI’s – please strike me or pref me real real low if this is your thing. I just don’t like it. This is one of if not the only hard-line I draw on content. They’re a time suck to play weird chess instead of engaging in the substance of the debate. Also, the majority of the time, horribly explained/extended.

Content

No huge preferences here

Cross-ex - I don’t flow cx unless something spicy grabs my attention and it’s usually obvious when that happens based on my reaction. Bring it up in a speech to remind me. Open cross, flex prep, is fine – I for real check out for flex prep.

Card clipping – you’ll lose. Might report it to tab/your coach if I’m feeling zesty that day.

Silliness

Love a good joke, wordplay, or reference. I currently am trying to incorporate “slay”, “yeehaw”, “gaslight gatekeep girlboss” and more into my regular debate vernacular. Feel free to also use these and I’ll at least laugh, maybe boost speaks, who knows – depends on how much of a silly goofy mood I’m in.

About me:

I debated LD for one year in high school, and Policy for a year with the Samford Debate Team.

I prefer policy over kritiks, but I'll listen to anything if you present it well and explain your argument. It is super important to me that you explain how arguments interact with each other, and not just extend them.

Topicality- if you're going for T your entire 2NR should be T

Kritiks- I will listen to them, but I need you to explain to me the literature, don't just assume that I know it.

Framework is fine as long as its not offensive

Disads- Overviews are good, put them on top and let me know that they're coming.

For the Novices- time your speeches, make sure you're flowing, Cross X is a speech so make sure you're flowing that as well. Clarity over speed please. Please extend your Aff.

4 years of LD experience

I’m up for pretty progressive args.

Spreading is fine with (will call out for in round if needed)

Time yourselves- I'll keep a timer but I'm not paying much attention to it

Don't flow cross ex- anything said in cx should be brought up in rebuttal

Framework debate is super important!

I debated both PF and LD for two years in high school. I primarily debated Public Forum, and work more with that as a coach. In high school, I won the state Championship for LD.

PF Paradigms:

Try to focus on the actual meat of the debate. Many debaters get caught up on some small aspect of their bigger arguments and forget that there are many other things to be said. I hate feeling like there could have been an amazing debate, but leaving disappointed.

Because I was an LD debater, I can flow a good 8 on the 1-10 scale, however, I was a traditional Public Forum debater, and in a PF round, I want a PF debate. Spreading in PF will not be to your advantage- trust me, I know you have a lot you want to say, but you will go a lot further in convincing me if you talk to me instead of at me.

Tell me where you are going in the beginning of your speech, and stick to it. 

My biggest pet peeve is when people do not stick to the final focus guidelines.

LD Paradigms:

I love a good K, unfortunately, I never see them. If you have one please do not hesitate to use it in my round.

As I said above, I can handle an 8 on the scale of 1-10. However, if you see me during a round and I'm not flowing you, it means you are going too fast for me. Don't be afraid to slow down and hit your best points the hardest. 

That being said, I am familiar with maybe half of the terms in LD. I primarily work with Public Forum students and have competed the most in PF as well. If there is a term you use that you know many people don't know, explain it to me because I probably don't either.

Do not bully your opponent. I have always seen this happen the most in LD and I don't know why, but you lose a lot of credibility if you attack your opponent rather than their points. 

I competed in LD debate from 2008-2016 on the Texas circuit. From 2012-2016, I competed on the American Parliamentary Debate circuit for Harvard College. I currently am a full-time coach for SpeakFirst in Birmingham, AL, where I teach PF and LD, and work with the Smith College APDA team.

I am generally receptive to most arguments, as long as the significance of the argument is explained in the round. I will not intervene unless an argument is clearly racist/sexist/homophobic/classist/ablist. Please draw these issues to my attention if you feel they are present in the round. For theory arguments, topicality arguments, etc. please be sure to briefly explain the function of the argument and why it should precede other arguments, if relevant. Be sure to clearly extend and weigh arguments as I will give preference to arguments based on impacts (whether they be moral or pragmatic impacts) within reason. I will give more weight to arguments with evidence or philosophical underpinnings.

Stylistically, I prefer voters or a clear weighing mechanism but this will not affect my decison. I am comfortable with most speeds but if I cannot understand you, I will say "clear" until I can.