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.

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!

2022 Update- I am not longer actively coaching debate. Please do not assume that I know a lot about the topic, have any idea what some other school's aff is, or have strong feelings about what obscure topic wordings mean. 

Allison.c.harper@gmail.com. - Put me on the chain please. I will not follow along with the doc or read cards I don't think are necessary to make a decision but spelling my first name is annoying and this was buried near the bottom of my philosophy.

Here are a few ways that I think my judging either differs from others or has changed with online debate:

1) I flow and do not open your speech documents during your speeches. That means you need to try to present arguments in a way that is flowable.  Make sure tags are clear. Answer arguments in an order I can follow (such as the order in which they are presented). Add structure and signpost.  Avoid reading giant analytical paragraphs without breaking things up. Avoid jumping around the flow arbitrarily or reading blocks in places where they dont belong.  Doing these things make sure that I not only have a record of what you said, but helps me understand how you think what you are saying applies/responds to your opponents arguments.  When you don't do these things, you increase the odds that I misunderstand what you think you have answered.

2) Make comparisons.  I read less evidence during and after debates than other judges. I start my decisions by looking at my flows, deciding what the key questions are, resolving things that I can, and only then look at evidence.  Make comparisons between your warrants, quality of evidence. Draw out the interactions for me rather than forcing me to do these things for you. I see that as intervention, but the way that many debaters give rebuttals these days sometimes makes it impossible to decide without that intervention. I would much rather let you do the comparing.

3) I am not in the cult of big impacts/try or die. You need to solve for something. Your counterplan needs a net benefit. I can be convinced to vote for low risk, but presumption and zero risk exist. Not everything needs a card. Smart analytics can knock down the risk of some pretty silly arguments.  If the other team does have evidence of sufficient quality, however, a card to the contrary would go a long way.

4) I don’t think I am a bad judge for the k if you debate the k technically, especially on the neg. I am not great for any argument if you are overly relying on an overview to get things done, are speaking in paragraphs without considering flowability, or are addressing components of the debate in ways that ignore the line by line. I am better for specific links and alts that I would be able to explain back to the other team what they do based on the explanation you offered in the round.  I think 90% of the time spent on “framework” when the neg reads a k is a waste of time by both sides. The neg gets links to what the aff said and did. The aff gets to weigh the implementation of the plan. Unless another way of thinking about this is presented and dropped, this is how I end up evaluating the debate anyway. I am less of a fan of critical affirmatives that are not topical, do not relate to the topic in a significant way, etc. In K aff vs framework debates, the aff is helped if I can understand what reasonable ways the negative could anticipate an aff like yours and reasonably respond to it.

5) I would rather you make link arguments to kritiks about assumptions that the other team has made during this debate rather than ask me to evaluate something that happened other debates or outside of debates. Other debates had judges who rendered their own decisions. If there are serious concerns about a debater's out of round behavior, please take that to their coaches or tournament administrators. 

6) Process debates are boring. They might be necessary on some recent topics, but they are so boring on topics where there are great disads. They would be better with some evidence that suggest this process ought to exist/be used, even better if there are cards about the topic or aff. For example, I am far more into con-con about a constitutional/legal question than con-con to withdraw from NATO. But really, wouldn’t it be cool if we picked debate topics that were actual controversies? Wouldn’t it be cool if topics that had some controversy were limited in a way that makes some sense?

7) When you steal prep time, you are stealing my decision time. Please don’t. If you are making changes to your speech doc (deleting analytics, rearranging blocks, combining multiple docs into one, etc) you should have a prep timer running. Sending a doc is fine outside of prep but should be done efficiently, especially if you are debating at the varsity/open level. Refusing to start CX until you have a marked copy is also a big waste of my time unless you are planning to ask questions that are affected by these markings. I have yet to see that happen, so let's get on with it.

8) In online debate, you MUST make an effort to be clearer. NSDA campus makes you sound like a robot eating rocks. What was passable on classrooms.cloud doesn’t cut it on campus. I should be able to understand the body of your evidence, distinguish tags from cards, etc. I do not open speech documents when you are speaking. I need to be able to hear and understand you.

9) It is much harder to pay attention to online debates. This isn’t your fault. It is a feature of the format. I have found cross-ex in particular difficult to follow and keep in focus. People talking at once is really rough online, and I appreciate attempts to limit this by keeping answers reasonable in length and not cutting off reasonable answers. I will do my best in every debate to give you every bit of attention I have, but it would help me if you would forefront cross-ex questions that might matter to your strategy. Asking the other team what they read is cross-ex time.

Old Philosophy- I don't disagree with this:

I think I am a relatively middle of the road judge on most issues. I would rather hear you debate whatever sort of strategy you do well than have you conform to my argumentative preferences. I might have more fun listening to a case/da debate, but if you best strat or skillset is something else, go for it. I might not like an argument, but I will and have voted for arguments I hate if it wins the debate. I do have a pretty strong preference for technical, line by line style debate.

I am open to listening to kritiks by either side, but I am more familiar with policy arguments, so some additional explanation would be helpful, especially on the impact and alternative level. High theory K stuff is the area where I am least well read. I generally think it is better for debate if the aff has a topical plan that is implemented, but I am open to hearing both sides. To be successful at framework debates in front of me, it is helpful to do more than articulate that your movement/project/affirmation is good, but also provide reasons why it is good to be included in debate in the format you choose. I tend to find T version of the aff a pretty persuasive argument when it is able to solve a significant portion of aff offense.

I don’t have solid preferences on most counterplan theory issues, other than that I am not crazy about consultation or conditions cps generally. Most other cp issues are questions of degree not kind (1 conditional cp and a k doesn’t seem so bad, more than that is questionable, 42 is too many, etc) and all up for debate. The above comment about doing what you do well applies here. If theory is your thing and you do it well, ok. If cp cheating with both hands is your style and you can get away with it, swell.

I have no objection to voting on “untrue” arguments, like some of the more out there impact turns. To win on dropped arguments, you still need to do enough work that I could make a coherent decision based on your explanation of the argument. Dropped = true, but you need a claim, warrant, and impact. Such arguments also need to be identifiable in order for dropped = true to apply.

It’s rarely the case that a team wins every argument in the debate, so including relevant and responsive impact assessment is super important. I’d much rather debaters resolve questions like who has presumption in the case of counterplans or what happens to counterplans that might be rendered irrelevant by 2ar choices than leaving those questions to me.

I try my best to avoid reading evidence after a debate and think debaters should take this into account. I tend to only call for evidence if a) there is a debate about what a card says and/or b) it is impossible to resolve an issue without reading the evidence myself. I prefer to let the debaters debate the quality of evidence rather than calling for a bunch of evidence and applying my own interpretations after the fact. I think that is a form of intervening. I also think it is important that you draw out the warrants in your evidence rather than relying on me to piece things together at the end of the debate. As a result, you would be better served explaining, applying, and comparing fewer really important arguments than blipping through a bunch of tag line/author name extensions. I can certainly flow you and I will be paying attention to your speeches, but if the debate comes down to a comparison between arguments articulated in these manners, I tend to reward explanation and analysis. Also, the phrase "insert re-highlighting" is meaningless to someone who isn't reading the docs in real time. Telling me what you think the evidence says is a better use of your time

I like smart, organized debates. I pay a ton of attention and think I flow very well. I tend to be frustrated by debaters who jump around or lack structure. If your debate is headed this direction (through your own doing or that of the other team), often the team that cleans things up usually benefits. This also applies to non-traditional debating styles. If you don’t want to flow, that’s ok, but it is not an excuse to lack any discernible organization. Even if you are doing the embedded clash thing, your arguments shouldn't seem like a pre-scripted set of responses with little to no attempt to engage the specific arguments made by the other team or put them in some sort of order that makes it easier for me to flow and determine if indeed arguments were made, extended dropped, etc.

Please be nice to each other. While debate is a competitive activity, it is not an excuse to be a jerkface. If you are "stealing prep" I am likely to be very cross with you and dock your speaker points. If you are taking unreasonably long amounts of time to jump/email your docs or acquire someone else's docs, I am also not going to be super happy with you. I realize this can sound cranky, but I have been subjected to too many rounds where this has been happening recently.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Thoughts on Pf and LD:

Since I occasionally judge these, I thought I should add a section. I have either coached or competed in both events. I still have a strong preference for flow-centric debate in both activities.

-You may speak as quickly or slowly as you would like. Don't make yourself debate faster than you are able to do well just because I can keep up

-You can run whatever arguments you are able to justify (see policy debate section if you have more specific questions)

-Too many debates in these events spend far too much time debating framing questions that are essentially irrelevant to judge decisions. Those frames mean little if you cant win a link. If you and your opponent are trying to access the same impact, this is a sign that you should be debating link strength not impact strength. Your speech time is short. Don't waste it.

-Make useful argument comparisons. It is not helpful if you have a study and your opponent has a study that says the opposite and that is the end of the argument. It is not helpful if everyone's authors are "hacks." With complicated topics, try to understand how your authors arrived at their conclusions and use that to your advantage.

-Stop stealing prep. Seriously. Stop. It is not cute. Asking to see a source is not an opportunity for your partners to keep prepping. If a speech timer or a prep timer isn't going, you should not be writing on your flows or doing anything else that looks like prepping. I see this in a disturbing number of PF rounds. Stop

-Give a useful road map or none at all. Do not add a bunch of commentary. A road map should tell a judge what order to put pieces of flow paper into and nothing more. Save your arguments for your speech time.

-Paraphrasing is bad. Read quotations. Send out ev in carded form ahead of time. If you are a varsity, national circuit level competitor, you should have figure out efficient ways to manage allowing the other team to review your evidence.

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.

Debate experience- I do not have any high school/college debate experience, but I have been a sponsor in speech/debate (learned as I taught it). I have judged Congress, PF, LD, and most IE's. I have a BA in History, MEd. in Education, and a MA in History and have taught AP World, AP Euro, regular World History, Contemporary World Religions/Current Events, and regular US History 11th gr. for 19 years.

I do not go in with a bias towards one side or another and will listen to all arguments/contentions, etc. made and typically make my decision on who has convinced me of their case and who has not dropped contentions/points. I like a good clash and substance in the debate; less on theory/policy. I would be classified as more of a traditional LD and PF judge. I like students to have clear contentions and be able to back those up.

Speed: I have never judged Policy and I can see that some policy students have trickled down into the world of LD and even PF. If you spread, you better make sure your opponent can follow your argument and I can follow your argument! Using the strategy of spreading to overwhelm your opponent with information just so you can go back and say that your opponent has dropped your contentions frustrates me. If you have a solid case, there is no reason why speaking at a normal rate of speech would not be preferred.

Respect- Please be kind! I despise when students talk down to their opponents or interrupt them. Some students are still new to debate so they don't need you to crush their spirits. I want everyone to have fun and have a strong, respectful debate.

Disclosure- I do not like to disclose; please don't ask. I will give as much feedback as I can on the judges sheet.

- I am a parent.

- Please don't spread. Breathing is a good thing.

- Keep things at a slow or medium pace

- You will be best to hit the stock issues; don't try to persuade me that speciesism outweighs tangible impacts

- Be courteous and explain arguments and impacts clearly without jargon.

- I advise big picture debate, good weighing, and clarity.

- I prefer the round to be about the actual resolution.

- Write my ballot for me; if you tell me how to view the round and how to prioritize arguments the earlier the better you will be.

- I come from a traditional circuit and I am a lay judge, so the more progressive the round gets, the less capable I am of making a qualified decision.

- If there is truly an abuse situation and you believe you can convince a parent that theory is necessitated, then feel free to do LAY/paragraph theory

- Please signpost/roadmap- I hate when it is unclear where you are and I get bounced around in my notes. I will take notes.

- Well structured and organized arguments and presentation are greatly appreciated.

- Have fun

- Don't be rude, abusive, or incoherent.

- Keep me entertained, though. Make me laugh.

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.

Jay Rye - Head Coach - Montgomery Academy

Experience- I have been involved with L/D debate since 1985 as a former L/D debater, judge, and coach. I have been involved with Policy debate since 1998. I have coached Public Forum debate since it began in 2002. While at many tournaments I serve in the role as tournament administrator running tournaments from coast to coast, every year I intentionally put myself into the judge pool to remain up to date on the topics as well as with the direction and evolving styles of debate. I have worked at summer camps since 2003 - I understand debate.

Philosophy

I would identify myself as what is commonly called a traditional L/D judge. Both sides have the burden to present and weigh the values and/or the central arguments as they emerge during the course of the round. I try to never allow my personal views on the topic to enter into my decision, and, because I won't intervene, the arguments that I evaluate are the ones brought into the round - I won't make assumptions as to what I "think" you mean. I am actually open to a lot of arguments - traditional and progressive - a good debater is a good debater and an average debater is just that - average.

While for the most part I am a "tabula rasa" judge, I do have a few things that I dislike and will bias me against you during the course of the round either as it relates to speaker points or an actual decision. Here they are:

1) I believe that proper decorum during the round is a must. Do not be rude or insulting to your opponent or to me and the other judges in the room. Not sure what you are trying to accomplish with that approach to debate.

2) Both sides must tell me why to vote "for" them as opposed to simply why I should vote "against" their opponent. In your final speech, tell me why I should vote for you - some call this "crystallization" while others call it "voting issues" and still others just say, "here is why I win" - whatever you call it, I call it letting your judge know why you did the better job in the round.

3) I am not a big fan of speed. You are more than welcome to go as fast as you want, but if it is not on my flow, then it was not stated, so speed at your own risk. Let me say that to the back of the room - SPEED AT YOUR OWN RISK! If you have a need for speed, at the very least slow down on the tag lines as well as when you first begin your speech so that my ears can adjust to your vocal quality and tone.

4) I am not a big fan of "debate speak: Don't just say, cross-apply, drop, non-unique, or other phrases without telling me why it is important. This activity is supposed to teach you how to make convincing arguments in the real world and the phrase "cross-apply my card to my opponents dropped argument which is non-unique" - this means nothing. In other words, avoid being busy saying nothing.

5) Realizing that many debaters have decided to rely on the Wiki, an email chain, and other platforms to exchange the written word, in a debate round you use your verbal and non-verbal skills to convince me as your judge why you win the round. I rarely call for evidence and I do not ask to be on any email chain.

Pronouns: He/him. Email: Pavelshirley@gmail.com add me to the chain

I am an LD debater at Mountain Brook. I am very much a flow judge and will vote entirely only arguments you have explicitly made. I am fine with speed and will listen to pretty much any argument that isn't open racist/homophobic/sexist/ etc.

This is meant to be an LD paradigm, so I'll just go over what I think of stock arguments.

Ks - I like Ks and understand most, but that does not mean you can just stand up and not explain your arguments. I am not a huge fan of High Theory. On the topic of K affs, I'm not a fan. That doesn't mean I won't listen to one but I'd really rather you don't. As a general rule, I expect any aff to advocacy statement whether you defend the resolution or not. Also perms, I really like smart perm debates.

DAs - I really like topic specific DAs. These are some of my favorite debates to watch and while I don't particularly like PTXs, Federalism, or other uber-generic DAs I'll still listen and readily vote on any that make it to the 2NR intact.

CPs - I'm also a fan of CPs. I love topic-specific advantage CPs but that doesn't mean I don't like more run-of-the-mill PICs. I also think embedded net-benefits are smart and will not be dogmatic about having the net-benefit be an explicitly separate DA.

Theory - I love theory. That is different from liking bad theory though. There should a somewhat true abuse claim and all the other generics going into theory. I really don't like answers like "gut check" or something similarly non-responsive. The way I see theory means that I view it as any other arguments, so if an argument is only "this is unfair" with no further warrants. Also layer, just do it. I'll listen.

LD FW - I don't like Phil and I love Util. The smartest thing to do in front of me is to just make it a Util debate and move on.

FW FW- I don't understand the trend in Circuit LD to discount FW against K affs and the like. I say this to mean that I like FW and will vote on it.

I'm not a fan of tricks like "resolved means the Rez has already happened" or including "presume neg" in one card tag and then making it the entire 2NR. I have a pretty low threshold for theory or analytics against these types of arguments.

AFF:

I already mentioned under Ks that I have a strong preference for topical affs. From there I have few preferences. I don't care about having big stick arguments or plan texts I just expect you to be able to defend both. Lastly, I don't like phil affs and I think the affirmative has to defend the implications of the affirmative.

Underview

Everything I have already said applies to Novice Debate but obviously, my threshold for the quality of argumentation is lower. Please don't be mean in CX and don't try to "teach" your opponent in round.

If you mention my paradigm to me it proves you read it, so I'll immediately give you 1 extra speaker point.

I am an LD debater at Mountain Brook High School and I used to participate in Policy and Public Forum.

Novice LD--Betty Gunn Invitational

If you are here looking at this page as a novice debater, good for you you're on the right track.

I view a round from the top down on my flow, starting with the framework. The framework debate needs to happen. Even if you and your opponent have the same framework, you need to explain how your case should be viewed by me as a judge using that framework.

PLEASE weigh impacts so I don't have to do it for you. I know that you are a novice so even if you try to weigh your arguments against your opponents.

General Note: I do not fully understand (and for this reason greatly dislike) Kantian frameworks. If you choose to run one, please explain it thoroughly to me. I will not vote for you just because you stumped your opponent with arguments they don't understand. You need to understand them too.

I'm willing to listen to any type of argument you'd like to read but I can get lost in heavy philosophy, especially if it's poorly explained.

I will not make arguments for you at the end of the round, but you can help me sign my ballot by telling my what my role as a judge is in the round.

I do not flow CX but I do observe and pay attention so bring back up points in later speeches about something that went down in CX if you want me to weigh it.

Don't steal prep time. I will reflect it in your speaker points if you do. I don't charge prep time for emailing or flashing your case to your opponent.

Also, make a Ratatouille reference and I'll give you 30 speaks--JK JK, but in all seriousness that is the best Pixar movie of all time and I'm willing to debate you about it after the round if you like.

Be courteous to your opponent and have fun!

Policy Style Args for LD

CPs--Love them as a 1N, hate them as a 2A. If you run a CP make sure you have a solid net benefit. I will vote on Condo, especially in LD, if you run a bad CP and then kick it in the last speech

DAs--these are good too; make sure you have a solid link; the first thing I look at when questioning the legitimacy of a DA is the link to the Aff

Ks--I know little to nothing about heavy theory or philosophy Ks; I will listen to you and try to understand but if you are thinking about running something like Baudrillard or Foucault or Psychoanalysis I will have zero clue what you are talking about; I'm totally down for you to run Capitalism or Security or something like that

FW--I will default to a policy-making framework unless you tell me otherwise; please don't make miniature DAs on the FW flow, I will be confused and you don't want that

Plan Texts in LD--they are ok; that being said, I'm not afraid to pull the trigger on Topicality

I'm totally fine with traditional LD arguments

I'm ok with speed but, like very judge, make sure you're clear. If you are not clear I will say clear once and then I will just stop flowing.

PLEASE DO IMPACT CALC at the end of the round. It's like filling out my ballot for me

PS impact calc doesn't just mean here's this impact it better than this one. You need to explain/defend your link chain too.

Feel free to ask me any question you'd like too

Good luck!

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.   

I debated LD for Vestavia for 3 years and PF for 1 year. I did debate on the national circuit, so I can handle speed, theories, and other off-cases. I do not like K's so I will not vote on them. I'll let you know if you need to slow down by saying clear. I love a good framework and standards debate, so I'd generally prefer that it be the focal point. Clear extensions and turns are of course preferred. I also dislike "squirrelly" arguments, so that's another topic that I largely will not vote on. Other than that, I've had 4 years of judging experience and I have judged at Nationals. 

I prefer policy arguments over critical arguments, but I will definitely pull the trigger if a K convinces me.

Spreading is good, just slow down for tags and for theory. If I can't understand what you're saying for those I'm not flowing it.

Tech over truth. If an argument is ridiculous explain to me why it's ridiculous.

Debate is an educational activity. Ask me any questions you have about my judge philosophy, RFD, or arguments in debate and I'll be happy to explain. My email is russdebate@gmail.com .

LD:

Framework is a lens to view arguments through. It tells me how to decide my ballot, but it doesn't write the ballot. A conceded framework is not a round deciding event, but it decides which impacts I vote for.