About Me

I am a 4th year Public Forum debater who has competed at multiple NSDA National Tournaments, GFCA State Tournaments, and TOC qualifiers. Personal interests include sports, music, art, cinema, and the outdoors.

How I Evaluate the Round

I evaluate the round based solely on the flow, with speaking being evaluated completely separately. Since I am evaluating on the flow, I prefer teams to utilize tactics such as the line-by-line and signposting, as well as the off-time-roadmap. Please, however, do not give a worthless off-time-roadmap just to tell me that you will be rebutting the other team's case. Lastly, I am a big fan of overviews, frameworks, and other topical analysis to help narrow the debate a provide a mechanism for me to weigh the round.

Speaking Preferences

My main speaking preference is definitely CLARITY. If I can't understand you, I can't flow you, and I vote off the flow. Feel free to speak as fast as you'd like, but ideologically I'm opposed to spreading in Public Forum or Lincoln Douglas, and will probably dock your speaks for such. First speakers, make it a point to have your constructive sound as perfected and refined as possible, as it is effectively the only speech in the round you have the opportunity to prepare outside the round. Second speakers, make it a priority to give a good final focus, as I consider that to be the speech where rounds, particularly those that I am evaluating, are most often won or lost.

History: Debated for 4 years on the national circuit and a little bit on the local circuit. Went to Semis at GFCA State 2018, Broke at NSDA Nationals 2018, and broke at NFL Nationals 2019, along with breaking at multiple national tournaments

UPDATE 11/13/20* It would be great if you can send me both of your cases before the round, it would be even better if you can also send me every card you use in the round, doing this makes my job easier and I will give you higher speaks.

Evaluation: I vote off of Final Focus, however anything not brought up in Summary should not be reintroduced in Final Focus (aka extending through ink) as I will not evaluate the argument, because you do not consider it important enough to be weighed in the second half of the round. I expect Road Maps before every speech besides the constructive, that way I know where you are going throughout the speech, and I can clearly recognize your route to my ballot. If you do not stick to your Road Map I will dock your speaks. Also, Sign Posting when giving your speeches will help me a lot, and I will probably be able to evaluate as much as possible as you will be giving me organized arguments. Make sure you extend your Framework throughout the round if you want me to evaluate it, also make sure to explain why your framework is more important than the opposition if there is a conflict in that area. If you don't provide a frame work I default to a Cost Benefit Analysis I would also love for you to explain the analysis and warrants behind the evidence that you bring up in the round, I do not really care what the author has to say directly, rather I care about how the card impacts the round. I am also a big fan of analysis from YOU as this event is focused around the education of argumentation. As for specific speeches I expect the 1st Rebuttal to have a great deal of offense as you should not have to play defense because the 2nd speaking team has not given their rebuttal yet. For the 2nd Rebuttal I expect it to have a good amount of Front lining as you should be responding to the 1st speaking teams rebuttal. I do not mind the 1st Summary having a little bit of defense as it is the only chance to respond to the 2nd rebuttal, but I do expect you to be winning your links and extending important offense throughout the majority of the speech. 2nd Summary should be solely focused on winning your links and extending offense, as well as explaining to me why you are winning the round. For Final Focus your job is to win the round by extending offense, and winning/weighing your impacts. Side Notes: I am not super familiar with theory, but I will try to evaluate it the best way I can. TECH OVER TRUTH

Preferences: Cross Examination: Make sure to be productive in cross examination, you should be asking questions about areas you are confused about, you are not trying to gain a specific tactical advantage, that is why it is called a cross examination and not its own respective speech. I also do not flow cross examination so if you have something important to say you need to bring it up in your speech Speed: I can handle a good bit of speed, however make sure to emphasize the most important substance, that way I can make as few mistakes as possible. Attitude: I am not one to vote you down for being too aggressive, but just note that the majority of judges do not like when you act in a derogatory manner, and it is not that appealing. I understand you can get frustrated but just try to chill out. Speaks: I rarely give a 30, but if you get above a 28.5 it means that I view you as an above average debater so congrats.

he / him

My email for the chain is hbharper8@gmail.com but also feel free to reach out with questions about your round / my RFD

tldr: I am okay with anything you run as long as you are respectful.

Fun Facts:

I did PF from 2015-19

I do not like to base my ballot only on disclosure theory or topicality, so you shouldn't make those your only voters.

I do not like when teams try changing the structure (speech times) of the round with theory.

I don't expect you to necessarily run a counter-interp against theory if you don't know how to do that. Just engage with the substance of their theory argument like any other argument.

I will probably tell your first speaker that they went for too much in summary.

I think in summary defense is sticky unless it was frontlined.

The second rebuttal should address the first rebuttal but I will accept responses in second sum as well - just no new turns.

No offensive off-case arguments in the second rebuttal.

Speaker points:

I appreciate funny taglines and puns when they are in good taste.

Yelling / being mean in cross will hurt your speaks.

I debated for 4 years in high school and I would consider myself technical.

I need understandable evidence shown and clearly told to me in almost all instances to be able to flow an argument to your side. Though I will take logical arguments if the concepts are well known and make sense to link into the debate.

I try to judge based off of evidence that is said in speeches, and not flow arguments that only show up in crossfire. Make sure if there is something important said in crossfire make sure it said in the following speech!

Being able to clearly understand what I'm voting for throughout the round is also important, it makes it easier for me to put on my flow what you are advocating for and why. So voters or however you feel comfortable presenting it to me helps me see the round a lot clearer.

I would also prefer if during the speeches for debaters to not spread their speeches, because i'm not the greatest getting everything that you will say, and because of that it may confuse me how your case is structured.

Preferences for crossfire, I would like debaters to stand if they can and face me while asking questions so that the crossfire doesn't get as "heated" or personal.

I will be judging mostly based on evidence to back your arguments up and will understand and try to weigh logical arguments against something your opponent says, if possible. Though usually you will need evidence of this logic working before or something along those lines.

I also will be judging non-biased as possible, and when I weigh I usually weigh human lives over everything else. Because disregard of a lot of human lives is almost never worth a "little bit" of money.

I need understandable evidence shown and clearly told to me in almost all instances to be able to flow an argument to your side.

I can flow all types of arguments and I am a big fan of any theory arguments you might have. When you spread, if I can't understand you I will say clear. I will say clear twice and if I still can't understand you I will stop flowing. I will check cards at the end of the round if I have any issues with them or if there is a lot riding on one card. I mostly just want a good debate with flushed out arguments and lots of clash.

Thank you.