Speed is fine. I'm your standard second year out flow debate judge. Have fun and Roll Tide. Please though, for the love of god, do not run theory shells.

Kiarra (Key-Era) Pronouns They/Them.

You can add me to the email chain {Kdbroadnax@gmail.com} To help me keep track of email chains. Put your team code and Round number in the subject section please and thank you.

Debated at Samford University (Policy) Currently a Coach with SpeakFirst (PF and LD)

Things to do. (Policy)

1. Signpost, do line-by-line, and use analytics.

2. Speed. Go as fast as you want. If you're unclear, I will look at you very confused because I will not know what to flow.

3. Kicking {Arguments, not other debaters} You should be kicking out of things. I will give .3 on speaks if it's creative. I LOVE a good mic drop moment.

Things to do. (PF)

1. Use analytics. they are super useful and make the debate more interesting

2. Speed. Go as fast as you want. I did do policy but If you're unclear, it will reflect in your speaker points.

3. Collapse down. You are not winning everything and we both know that.

Things to do. (LD)

1. Signpost, do line-by-line, and use analytics.

2. Speed is fine. Just be clear.

3. Put me on the email chain if you make one. If I call for cards at the end of the round and then have to wait for you to set up a chain I will doc speaker points. Please just set it up before the round starts.

4. The affirmative should defend the resolution. Yes, every time.

5. Make me think. Challenge the status quo. Run wacky K's. I won't always vote on it but I will enjoy it.

6. About number 5. If you are going to run a K or something similar. Please put a trigger warning if there is mention of sensitive topics and mention them before the round starts. It's uncommon in this climate but it would greatly be appreciated.

Please, do not do these (Policy):

1. Yelling, Being passionate about your case is super cool, but yelling at me will make me not want to vote for you.

2. Introducing Harmful Partnerships into the Debate space. I get that debate is a stress-inducing activity but your partner is there with you for a reason. You should use them. I am fine with partners interacting during a speech. Ex: Your partner handing you a card or their technology to use to read a card off of, or handing you their flow. But if your partner is spoon-feeding you, your speech.

3. Demanding a Judge Kick. Nope. No. No, thank you. if you want to kick out of something then do so.

Please, do not do these (PF):

1. Excessively call for cards. I get it. Sometimes you need to see cards but calling for 5 cards per speech is a bit much.

2. Being rude during CX. I get sassy sometimes but screaming, not letting debaters answer or name-calling is unnecessary.

3. If you send a link (only a link) when an opponent calls for evidence. I'll doc speaks. If you send ME a link. ill vote you down. There are rules to this activity. You need to have CUT cards.

Please, do not do this ( LD):

1. Don't be a jerk. Not every debater is going to get your K. Chill.

DO NOT at any point compare ANYTHING to slavery, the holocaust, genocide, rape, etc.

I will vote you down.

Yay debate!

I did debate in high school, but I have been out of it for a while now so please excuse me if I am not totally up to date on everything. I am open to pretty much any argument and speed as well (but I prefer a conversational speed in Public Forum). I also request that competitors time their own speeches and prep time, and I'm ok if you go a little over time to finish your sentence but anything more than 5 seconds and I stop flowing.

Can't stress this enough: IMPACT WEIGHING, IMPACT WEIGHING, and IMPACT WEIGHING. Start in the summary continue with it in the Final Focus. If you don't present me with impacts to vote on it's a tough path for you to win my ballot. Impact calc is a HUGE plus so please include it in your speeches, especially if you have time left on the clock.

While framework isn't something that is a must for PF, I do love to see it. Framework is something that can give you that little edge and come in clutch in the end, especially if you know how to use it. However, please don't spend a ton of time arguing about framework and then barely mention it at the end of the round.

Keep cross civil and treat your opponents with respect. Other than that try to speak as clearly as possible and please give an offtime road map before you begin speaking.

Alyssa Gregory (alyssa.g.gregory@gmail.com yes put me on the email chain).

I was on the Policy Debate Team at Samford University where I qualified for the national debate tournament twice. All of my debate experience has been in policy but I still feel like I have a good understanding of LD and PF.

A brief overview: I lean towards aff on theory, tech over truth, and love impact calc. The better line by line the better speaker points. Debaters have an incentive to lie so you need evidence to support your claims.

Other thoughts:

Tech v. Truth: I definitely lean more toward tech. There are a lot of true arguments in debate (probably on both sides) so if an arg is dropped and you point it out, it will be a true argument for me. However, if your opponent runs a really out there argument and you effectively argue against it I'll take this into consideration.

Speed: Go the fastest you can while being clear. As a debater, I've always hated when judges said clear so I'll probably only say it to you if you're excessively unclear. If I look confused that's a sign you need to change.

Kicking Arguments: Unless it’s a theory arg, you should be formally kicking out of things. I will kick a cp for the negative automatically if they respond to “status of the cp” in cx with “status quo is always an option” unless the aff tells me not to. Otherwise, I won’t kick anything unless explicitly told to by the negative.

This is true for all args except args that have no business in debate (see impact turns below)

Non-topical affs: I believe debate is a fun game students do for fun on the weekend. Like any game, debate has binding rules I will hold you to. You need to either affirm or negate the year's topic.

Traditional v. Progressive: I lean progressive. I have run and hit a few K's. The more far-fetched the K the less likely I will vote for you. I've also been in and witnessed some clash debates where people were overly rude to their opponents. If I witness you taunting, bullying, or acting in an excessively rude manner I will severely dock your speaker points. With all arguments, but especially Ks it is necessary to explain in simple terms what you are advocating for.

T: I'm very comfortable with these args. If you do go for T make sure you have a definition of an exact word from the resolution. You also need evidence to support this claim and more evidence to show the aff does not fall under your interpretation. And explain standards (especially if there is a counter interp) - If you don't tell me why to prefer your interp, I probably will give aff more wiggle room on being T. Standards need to have an impact. Why should I care about limiting the resolution? Also, make sure you present a Topical Version of the aff.

Theory More Broadly: Condo is a reason to reject the team or reject the arg, and everything else is just reject the arg. Debate is a game and theory arguments tell the judge when someone has broken a rule. I lean pretty far negative on theory like PICs, Conditional, etc. However, I find 3 Cps to be excessive (2 is fine). The more condo you have, the more persuasive the reject the team arg becomes and the more wiggle room I will give the aff. I think conditional planks are sketchy and unfair to the aff.

K: You cannot win a K without an alternative and need to have a solvency advocate.

CP: I love a good counterplan that is textually and functionally competitive with the plan, a credible solvency advocate, and a net benefit. I’m good with any reasonable cp as long as the negative is ready to defend it theoretically or kick out of it.

DA: Uniqueness determines the direction of the link.

Impacts: Do impact calculus and turns/solves case arguments at least in the 2NR/2AR. If the debate comes down to impact calculus and neither team has done any, I can’t tell you how I personally would evaluate the impacts. Please just make my life easier and do the impact calc

Impact Turns: If you impact turn anything like discrimination, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. you’re going to lose and get 0 speaker points.

Experience: I participated in Policy Debate in High School, qualifying for National Speech and Debate Tournament in Policy and extemporaneous speaking my Senior year in High School. I also participated in several IE events including Prose/Poetry, impromptu, and dramatic interpretation.

As a debate judge, I like to see the following items in around:

1. I strongly believe that debaters should be civil at all times, avoiding rude or insulting comments.

2. I like each component of your case to be clearly stated at the end (voters clearly stated). Make my flow easy to follow.

3. I feel that it is important that your speech is clear, easy to follow and at a pace consistent with real-world applications. If I cannot keep up with what you are saying it will not be added to the flow.

I'm a senior and 5th year debater for Mountain Brook High School. I've done PF and Policy.

I can handle speed, but I will always prefer depth of analysis and clarity over speed.

Any argument you make should be warranted. A tag is not sufficient. You must explain why your evidence is true and how your argument works.

Final Focuses should be primarily impact calculus because I need to know why the arguments you are making matter and how your impacts interact with and out way your opponent's.

You must time yourselves, but I will be keeping the official time. DON'T STEAL PREP. I see too many teams do this these days. If you are talking to your partner, someone's prep should be running.

For LD: Having done Policy, I know my way around progressive LD args. I don't love Ks, so you will have to do lots of work to get me to vote on them. Honestly all of my PF paradigm applies to LD.

Speaking clearly and at a speed so that I can understand your argument is imperative. I prefer a debate exhibiting quality over a debate exhibiting quantity. Be kind to your fellow debaters whether in or out of the debate room.

My experience in debate is primarily based in coaching. I have coached with both Middle School and High School teams in public forum. For me every part of a round is important, although I weigh the rebuttal, summary, and final focus speeches above the constructive. I particularly look for the ability to create strong clash between the strengths of your case and the weaknesses of your opponent's case throughout the round. I do not flow crossfires; however, I will note how well you defend your case or attack your opponent in crossfire.

I am the debate sponsor at JCIB in Birmingham, AL. I do not have personal experience as a debater and have learned what I know about debate from my students. My main request is that you do not speak at such a quick speed that it is impossible to understand what you are saying. If I can't understand you or follow your speeches, I can't vote on it! I will keep track of time on tabroom but I also encourage you to keep time yourself.

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.

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

I am an CX 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’m a flay parent judge and lawyer by trade.

I don’t flow cross at all- if you want me to weigh anything from cross bring it up in the next speech.

One pet peeve- Don’t try and tell me an argument is dropped that isn’t.

I weigh how you tell me to in your Final Focus.

I’ll be voting off my flow.

Speaks come from your presentation.

Tech>Truth

I don’t care how dumb your opponents argument is if you drop it, it counts- be diligent in frontlines and rebuttal arguments.

I appreciate competitiveness, and I’m fine with things getting heated. Racism, homophobia or lack of respect is an immediate ballot drop.

”The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.”

- Neil DeGrasse Tyson

Best of luck and Roll Tide.

Experience

Mountain Brook High School Speech and Debate Coach (2018 - Present)

Wheaton North High School Speech (2003-2007)

Wheaton North Public Forum Debater (2006)

As a judge, I want to see debaters that are:

Focused and Organized: The more thoughtful you are about how you present your contentions initially, the easier it for me to judge and for your opponents to interact with your case. Evidence should be succinct and questions during cross should be thoughtful and targeted. A PF round goes incredibly quickly, and it's important that you use each second to your advantage. In particular I appreciate when debaters weigh and discuss impact throughout the round. By the end I want to be sold on why your contentions are stronger and your impacts are more significant. Remember that as I judge I may not have seen all of the evidence that you have, and in Public Forum it is your job to talk to me as if I know nothing about the topic, even if I do.

Prepared: Nothing hurts the quality of a debate more than debaters who do not fully understand the resolution or their opponents’ claims. Good clash can only be built through understanding all facets of the resolution and the evidence available. That being said, citing a piece of evidence is never a substitution for a strong warrant. If you cannot explain your evidence and connect it logically to your argument, then I am less likely to consider it when judging. I do not like calling for evidence. It usually means that you have stopped debating the topic and started debating cards that I have not read.

Professional: Professionalism will not lose you a round with me, but it will absolutely impact the speaker points I award. Being confident and convincing me that you have won your debate is expected. Being rude, disrespectful, or condescending to the judge, your opponents, or your partner is never acceptable. Debate is an enormous undertaking, and every person’s time and commitment should be respected. It is also incredibly difficult to know what your opponents are saying if you do not give them their time to talk, or when you are overly focused on your own case.

For most of my judging/coaching tenure, I have not included a paradigm, and that is because I do not believe my personal opinions are particularly relevant to the way you argue your case or present your program. You do you. But kids seem to want paradigms, so here it is:

1) Be logical. Impacts that don't link up are illogical. I probably won't believe it. Not every action leads to nuclear war, kids. Thankfully.

2) Speak clearly. If you love to spread, ok. But if I can't understand you, I can't evaluate you. It's like you didn't say it.

3) Be professional. Aggressive tactics are fine; rudeness is not.

The point of Public Forum debate is that you should be able to break down the resolution for a member of the general public and convince them why your side is right. Debate presuming I don't know the deep intricacies of the resolution.

I award my ballot to the team with the best articulation of their arguments throughout the entire round, refutation of all their opponent's points, usage of evidence, and comparative argumentation. Speed and jargon are a big no. Humor goes a long way with me in terms of ethos and speaker points. Being mean or a bully does the opposite. Respect the line between "competitive" and "overtly hostile."
Be sure to time speeches and keep track of prep time. I'll also be keeping time, but there is a speaker point reduction for those who don't do it.

I'm an assistant PF coach at Charlotte Latin and a graduate student at the University of Alabama. My email is dmzell@crimson.ua.edu

Strake RR Paradigm

1. Anything on the ballot must be in final focus, and anything besides weighing in final focus must be in summary.

2. Please weigh. Tell me why your argument justifies a vote for you even if your opponent’s arguments are true.

3. I'm generally sympathetic to the first speaking team. Defense is not necessary in first summary, and new evidence should not be in the second. While you don't have to frontline everything, the second rebuttal needs to answer all offense.

4. If you are going to concede your opponent’s argument, it must be in the speech immediately after it was made.

5. Please be respectful. Avoid overly-aggressive crossfires and rudeness.

6. Evidence ethics matter a great deal to me. I don't care if it’s called for or contested, I will not vote on a miscut card. Lying about evidence is too easy and too common in this activity, and I have decided that intervening is worth it to stop cheating. If a card sounds sketchy to me, I will call for it, and if the card is severely miscut, drop the team. Please know that I understand evidence mixups can happen, as well as the "power tagging effect", where a card gets a bit exaggerated as the round progresses. There's a difference between that and fabricating, clipping, or grossly misrepresenting your evidence. The former might cause me to lower speaks, but the latter will be an L 20.

In General

I am a fan of speed and tech debate, but I'm out of practice--particularly with flowing. Just keep in mind that the faster you go the more likely it is I miss something. If you want to spread, try to reduce the risk of this by slowing down for key parts of arguments/cards and signposting well.

I will listen to pretty much any argument, but I may not know what to do with it. If you're going to make progressive arguments, make sure you're clear on how you want it evaluated and why.

Tech > Truth in the sense that dropped argument are true ones

Truth > Tech in the sense that I'm more than happy to listen to uncarded analysis if it's good.

If neither team has offense at the end of the round, I'll presume for the first speaking team, not neg. The structure of PF makes such an outcome much easier for the second speaking team to avoid.