I have debated through high school and in college for my experience in judging and competing

Now that all of that is established, you obviously want to know specifics on your event. Well, I've got you covered.

ALL DEBATE FORMATS:

Email Chain: I would like to be added if it is created, my email is ryan.corcoran@my.simpson.edu

Public Forum:

Philosophy: I will prioritize the flow for voting before all else, as I see it debate is a game and flow is the only fair way to keep my hands off the decision as much as possible

Tech>Truth, however the more shaky an argument is the less it takes to address it. (Ex. Cutting the NSA surveillance leads to the end of the world because of Swiss Physics)

Tabula rasa in round, but be aware I often know the literature on topics so I can better help you and your partner be better throughout the topic.

Speed: On a scale of 1-10 I'd say I can handle 8, but especially for comprehension sake and with online format issues, try to keep your speed at 5-6 for comprehension.

Crossfire: I will not weigh arguments made in cross unless they are brought up in a main speech.

Front lining: For the first speaking team this should be done in summary, the second rebuttal must frontline the first rebuttal, or else my ballot is written after that assuming they don't fumble the bag.

Weighing: It makes my decision so much easier if weighing starts at rebuttal. If you could tell me why even if all of their impacts come true we still win and be right, then carry that through each speech, you've won my ballot.

New Arguments in Summary: Don't do it :)

Final Focus: Really crystallize the round in this speech. You only have 2 minutes so don't panic to extend the whole flow, my ink is already placed. In this speech tell me the thing standing that without a doubt can't be objected to by anyone viewing the round's flow. The final focus gets overlooked far too much and I think that's a tragedy.

Judge Intervention: I won't interrupt or stop the debate unless serious problems arise. this is only like three things and it shouldn't be a worry

- Blatant Racism or Sexism

- Taking way, way too much time to find a card

- Technical difficulties over online

Off the Clock Roadmaps and Signposting: Please do this, it really helps me who has two separate papers to know where you are and if you do this your speaks will probably reflect my gratitude.

Plans/Counterplans: I will listen to them in the sense that I will not actively cover my ears or mute my computer, but just know that the pro doesn't need to have a defined plan and you can't propose a counterplan as the CON according to section 4 of the PF rulebook so, don't do it :)

Critiques/K arguments: I am not and will not claim to be familiar with the current literature surrounding K arguments. Unless a resolution is truly vile in nature, I will often default to not weighing the K argument at all.

Theory Arguments: Unless a serious violation has been perpetrated that inhibits debate, I won't weigh it at all. Granted, I am open-minded enough that you can roll the dice and then you leave it in my place to either interfere in the decision or rule on the flow, 9.9/10 times ill go with the ladder.

Here is a list of violations that if reasonably committed, would lead me to vote for theory

- Trigger Theory

Speaker Points: These generally stay high for me, if you really want a 30, adding personality to your speeches outside of the cards and the written words is the way.

Any other questions just ask at the beginning of round

LD:

Philosophy:

I will vote on the flow, tech>truth, and all that. Something to know, however, is the shakier an argument made is the easier it is for weak opposition to it being enough to make me look away from it.

Speed: On a scale of 1-10 I'd say I can handle 8, but especially for comprehension sake and with online format issues, try to keep your speed at 5-6 for comprehension.

Weighing: It makes my decision so much easier if weighing starts at 1NC and 2AR. If you could tell me why even if I buy their value and believe their impacts exist, that you would still win, it is an easy way to my ballot.

Judge Intervention: I won't interrupt or stop the debate unless serious problems arise. this is only like three things and it shouldn't be a worry

- Blatant Racism or Sexism

- Taking way, way too much time to find a card

- Technical difficulties over online

K Arguments: Sure, there aren't many rules barring this and while I won't claim to be constantly in the know on the climate and style of K debate, I think that especially in a format debating moral grounds that gives a platform for these arguments to be heard.

Theory Arguments: Unless a serious violation has been perpetrated that inhibits debate, I will be less likely to weigh as a priority. Granted, I am open-minded enough that you can roll the dice and then you leave it in my place to either interfere in the decision or rule on the flow, 9/10 times ill go with the ladder.

Here is a list of violations that if reasonably committed, would lead me to vote for theory

• Trigger Theory
• Speed

Off the Clock Roadmaps and Signposting: Please do this, it really helps me who has two separate papers to know where you are and if you do this your speaks will probably reflect my gratitude.

Speaker Points: These generally stay high for me, if you really want a 30, looking up from computer/papers is probably the way, or if that doesn't work, adding personality is huge

Big Questions:

Framing: I think one of the most important aspects of a format predicated on very broad questions is to give a starting ground and agree on what ground the debate is to be. Otherwise it's ships passing in the night and I have to put my opinion far more than you'd like. Defenition is also huge, and making sure in first CX the level of agreement on Defenitions should be prioritized.

Philosophy:Tech is still my main way to vote, however it is just as equivalent to the truth and coherence of the claims. Won arguments that are choppy w/ a not so consistent narrative are harder for me to hang a hat on.

Proving your side correct is just as important as proving the other side wrong. Many times I see particularly NEG teams place burdens and by consolidation say the other side hasn't met so we win. However the nature of inverse resolution also applies to burdens. Thus it may be true they didn't meet their burden, but also prove that you did meet your burden.

Weighing: It makes my decision so much easier if weighing starts at Rebuttal. If you could tell me why even if I buy their value and believe their impacts exist, that you would still win, it is an easy way to my ballot.

Speaker Points: These generally stay high for me, if you really want a 30, looking up from computer/papers is probably the way, or if that doesn't work, adding personality is huge

_________________

Speech/Interp:

I always found that speech paradigms were redundant because there isn't a way to cater your speech to me unless somehow you edit your intro or something. I will say this on the matter as my top 5 biggest things

Ennunciation

Characterization for Interp, Professionalism for speech

Use of Space/Blocking

Memorization

Cutting for Interp/Chosen Sources for speech

Interp Specific: Loud does not equal sad/emotion. Loud sometimes can equal funny, but please if at all possible have emotion be true to human nature. If I hear sad news I don't immediately grab a bullhorn and breakdown in hysteria, it is much more likely and relatable for any onlooker to your piece that emotion comes in subtle shades like the tone of the character's voice, the facial expressions, the body language, so many more things than the volume of the words being said.

If you ever have any questions or want further explanation of a decision I made or how to improve in your given category, just reach out to me at my email ryan.corcoran@my.simpson.edu

I have been a PF coach for 20+ years. To win my ballot you should do the following things.

1. Clearly sign post throughout the round. I do flow but I do not like to spend time looking for the arguments you are addressing.

2. If you have a framework, you need to address it throughout the round. Stating it in the first speech and then not again until final focus will cause me to not weigh it as heavily in the round. I only insert myself into rounds that there is no clear framework or weighing mechanism for the round.

3. I can handle moderate speed as long as you articulate. It is to your benefit that I get all the info I can.

4. I vote on the arguments presented. I will listen to all arguments but you need to make sure they are clearly explained. If I do not understand it I do not vote for it. I will not vote on K in PF

5. Extend arguments not cards. You need to give the argument the card is making just not the author's name when extending.

6. Give me clear voting issues in the final focus. I like to hear why you should win. The focus should be on your case not your opponents.

7. Speaker points are based on how well you present yourself throughout the round. I am a speech and theater teacher and like to see good communication skills. Yelling at me or your opponents is not good communication. Crossfires need to be conducted with civility. You can be civil and still have clash in the round. I rarely give 30’s, those are reserved for truly outstanding persuasive speakers.

I am a firm believer in clear and organized contentions with strong evidence to back your ideas. It will go well with me if you have specific impacts that you return to throughout the round. During rebuttal and later speeches, I appreciate an emphasis on why your contentions/impacts are stronger than your opponents' based on evidence and clear logic.

I also appreciate respectful, polite debate where everyone is treated well and debaters avoid being rude.

I am a lay judge. I prefer to have speakers speak slowly rather than really fast and to sign post their arguments and to keep their own times.

I strongly believe that debate should be an inclusive space. As long as you keep it that way, you can do whatever you want. Below is a laundry list of "things that might irritate me on any given day" and general preferences, but feel free to change them by blowing my mind.

Short version
My favorite rounds are when debaters engage in each others' args substantively, whatever format that may take. I flow your speeches straight down, which means collapsing, weighing, big picture analysis, and explict comparison will get you far. I give higher speaks to students that read creative positions and clearly know a lot about whatever they choose to read, be it Lacan, Ripstein, permissibility, the topic [gasp]. I also don't keep up with the trendy norms or lingo so break things down for me/don't assume I know much about anything.

Long version
Speed

• It's been a year or so since my last round so like 80% of your top speed would be ideal. Especially if it's early.

Theory/Topicality

• I'm cool with anything, be it reasonable or for strategy. The former is subconsciously more persuasive but I really don't care.

Framework/Tricks

• This is how I debated, and I feel comfortable evaluating these rounds.
• I think the less-sketchy (sketchy = hidden, one sentence, shifty about it in cx, warrantless, etc.) deployment of things like contingent standards, skep triggers, permissibility, etc. can be cool.
• AFC hurts my soul. That includes ABC, AEC, APC, and whatever else you youngfolk have come up with these days. I'll vote on it, but I'd prefer not to hear these debates.

Plan/DA/CP whatev

• Sure. I love and am always impressed by great, topic-specific prep
• I DON'T UNDERSTAND LINGO. I can't make that clear enough. If you do the whole "the internal link of the inherency perms the...." I won't follow it and thus not give it any weight.

Critical

• Know what you are talking about. Don't run out-there positions for shock value without having a clue what you're saying. That said, I love a well run K. High speaks if it makes me personally intrigued. That goes for all positions.

Cross ex

• I don't really pay attention. This is for you all. Make it apparent if it's something I need to pay attention to. Like throw something at me.

Speaks

• Speaks given out based on strategy. I average a 28. I try to make them relative to the rest of the pool.
• I couldn't care less what you're doing (sitting, laptop, walking around the room on your hands while you read the NC, playing death grips for the first 4 minutes of the AC, etc.) as long as you're respectful.
• I will dock speaks if you're incapable of putting docs on a flash drive in a whatever I arbitrarily deem a reasonable amount of time.
• No-prep 2ars and speeches where you sit down early DO impress me. If you can win easily and save me time, I will reward you well.

Misc

• I'm more lenient on aff extensions and extensions of dropped args, but I want at least "extend contention 1 jones card that says living wage closes wage gap because X".
• Don't tell me to "gut-check" something. Make arguments.
• I don't want to hear violations I can't verify or new shells in the 2ar or flashing theory or anything of the sort.
• I have absolutely ZERO tolerance for the teams that play fuckfuck before outrounds with disclosure of the aff, the flip, etc.
• I'll answer questions after the round for sure, but there will come a point where I'm like "meh better luck next time I need to go".

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Style: I am one of those judges who responds very negatively to rudeness, disrespect, and offensive language.

General: Please respect me by not using graphic descriptions of violence or abuse in your argumentation - if you have a question about this I’m willing to talk to you before round. I will not vote for what I feel are morally repugnant arguments like “racism good,” “torture good,” or “death good.” Do not take me or my ballot hostage. Do not argue for a double loss or a double win.

Speed: I’d prefer you go slowly. Fewer cards often means more skill in argumentation.

LD and PF
I approach LD and PF rounds through the lens of policy debate. So LD or PF specific jargon, abbreviations, and tricks likely will not resonate with me. I want clear impacts and impact analysis. I do not like paraphrasing and I want clash. Lots of clash. I feel like at the end of a lot of rounds I've not be told how to weigh the two teams' impacts. So lots of clash is only good with lots of impact weighing. In LD, I generally do not know or understand your kritiks. So take the time to explain to me how your kritik interacts with your opponent’s case.

Policy Debate
I think policy debate is about whether or not the aff's plan/advocacy should happen.

Kritiks : I think that Affs should have a written advocacy statement, but they do not necessarily have to advocate for the USFG. I prefer the policy making framework, but do have an appreciation for performance debate. Despite working for the NSDA, I think there are a lot of problems with debate as an activity/community. If you choose to kritik the institution of competitive debate, I appreciate arguments that are solutions-oriented.

Theory+ Topicality : I was a 2A so I have a residual aff bias when it comes to theory. For me to vote on T it must be proven that the aff’s interpretation is flawed and that abuse has happened in round. I have a hard time weighing different standards for theory and T - you need to do that work for me on the negative, if you don’t I will likely presume aff on T.

My Background
I work at the National Speech & Debate Association as the Leadership and Education Specialist. I have a theatre teaching degree, a master's in performance studies, and a master's degree in teaching English Language Learners. I am married to my former college teammate, Chase McCool, but we don't always agree on debate-things, so don't assume!

I did primarily PF for 4 years and now coach a bit. I studied political science and international relations and now work in state politics. I'm a very average flow judge.

add me to the email chain and label the round please: morgandylan183@gmail.com

Flip, pre-flow, and get ready as fast as possible, don't wait for me to get there.

please do not go more than 5 seconds over time or prep steal call your opponents out if they do this

Don't shake my hand

I evaluate the round: first, by looking to framework, then, if there is none, weighing to see where I should look to vote first. If neither occur, I look to what's left in final focus and whichever team has the cleanest link into their impact. I default to probability, then scope. I’m open to why I shouldn’t do any of this.

Speed: I do not want to have to follow along in a doc, be understandable. I flow on paper, I can keep up pretty well. If you are going really fast, look to see if I am writing, and adjust if I'm not.

Evidence: I expect all evidence to be in cut card format and ready to see when asked in a few minutes at most. If it is misrepresented I'm docking speaks, but it must be called out in a speech for me to strike it from the flow.

You can paraphrase if you have cut cards but properly explain each argument, I will not get blippy args on my flow and I shouldn't have to.

General Preferences of Arguments

quality over quantity (collapse on your offense and defense)

Tell me why I should prefer your analysis/warrant/evidence, etc. Resolve the clash!!

Frontline at least turns in 2nd rebuttal, anything in final focus needs to be in summary, besides more comparative weighing.

I love tons of warranting, smart analytics, good knowledge of your evidence and real-world stuff, and making up sound arguments on the fly that you can defend well.

Progressive Arguments

I'll listen to and vote off anything BUT I strongly prefer substance debates and I don't care. BUT If there's legitimate abuse I kind of understand how to evaluate theory. I'm not that familiar with K's or any other progressive args. I do know I strongly prefer topical K's.

With progressive debates, I am a lay judge. Slow down and explain everything more. I require sending speech docs for these.

Speaks: I range from 27.5-29.5, nothing crazy. More commonly 28-29, just do what I talked about above and you'll be fine. I will doc speaks if you do not do things I specifically ask, i.e. slowing down during progressive args.

Pronouns: they/them

Style: I respond negatively to speakers who are rude, inappropriate/disrespectful, behaviorally "icky." if you make snarky remarks that feel like personal or direct attacks to your fellow competitors, you immediately lose speaker points — sexism, racism, and other harmful actions&behaviors is an automatic thumbs down, no ballot from me. Do not deliberately misgender your opponents, I will report you to the tournament for harassment.

Background: Teaching, judging, head coachin' XP.Angles that touch on collective social benefit and education speak to me as a judge - I believe there is a way any team can win the majority of ballots if they do their homework, ask questions, adapt. Why not "all" ballots and just a majority? --> those inhospitable judges who stand on problematic foundations - but that's a conversation for the ombudsman and equity panel; I strongly believe judges & all adult shareholders need to be student-centered, constructive, and responsible for maintaining healthy competition and continuous learning in this activity. If you are a coach or judge focused on *just* 'winning' or being 'right' and right is only your values, then ew. if you are a judge, coach, or student who makes comments on competitors' appearance or things they cannot control, I will call you out in round -- student or adult, I don't care, I will call your behavior out. Do not be a jerk to children or peers. I will do the same if your comments in their meaning or delivery reflect historically oppressive comments said to marginalized debaters.

I flow -- we will rarely make eye contact in round so if I am no longer flowing, it means things have gone clear as mud. I’m not a Policy person in PF, they are separate for a reason. I am not a lay judge. But I won’t do the leaps of logic for you in round and I want what is argued and debated in round to matter than the judge’s own opinion. I expect to see adaptation in round *especially on mixed panels* as it shows a level of skill in competitors who can persuade to their judges' paradigms. Your lack of adaptability to a panel can hurt your speaker points, even if you had my flow - especially if you hit my red flags (above). My hope is that the experience is fun and rewarding for you, even if you don't win your round. :) Debate is an educational sport!

What I look for in a round:

Coherency, strong links, and evidence -- WHY are your impacts more urgent, critical, all around more relatable?? >>> speed for me, always. I believe public forum means *public* access — if you cannot explain or adapt to a lay judge, then do you understand what you’re debating yourself? I abhor grandstanding that sidelines partners or strokes egos; same for any rounds that chase agreeing on a definitions that go no where. Buzz words and speed that don't provide good solid ethos, pathos, logos won't mean much. I rarely call for evidence, so if you don’t then I will take it as agreeing to the other team’s use. I also believe that if there are fundamentally untrue things ("racism good") I will not accept them in round (truth over tech). Do not play devil’s advocate on people’s real lived experiences and trauma.

Teams should, explicitly, at the beginning determine how the round should be weighed!! Otherwise I will go with cost benefit

Don't steam roll your opponents during cross, especially if you ask them a question - interjecting so they cannot even respond to your question is no go for me. In your summary and final focus, I want to know why your evidence should be preferred, why your impacts outweigh, etc.

For congress: I want to hear refutation --> I want to see warrants (you are all students!) --> I want to see clash and I want advancement of the debate! I cannot stand questioning when the speaker is rude or dismissive of questions, even if they are simple or irrelevant questions. Congress is unique in its demand of decorum and if you cannot handle being a decent person in a role play of congress, then you need to reevaluate if you understand how congress in this activity functions.

reading this entire paradigm should give you a straight forward understanding of how to win my ballots, infer my values, and what to avoid in round.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK TO SHAKE MY HAND, ever. Lol. We learned things from the pandemic y’all. Fist bump or wave at me — it’s chill.

Pronouns: she / her

Style: I respond negatively to speakers who are rude, inappropriate/disrespectful, and grandstanding (my def = talking just to talk / pontificate).

Background: I have been teaching for 25 years in Iowa and Texas, and I have been Hoover's head debate coach for several years (and judged several years prior to that). I also have legal assistant training; this, too, informs my perspective as a judge.

I teach speech, argumentation, and persuasion daily – same concepts, different venue.

I’m here because I prize lifelong learning, and I find these experiences are fun, rewarding, and add insight into both my classroom teaching and debate coaching. I hope you, too, find these experiences fun and rewarding and that you learn and improve from each interaction… even if you don't win your round. :)

What I look for in a PF round:

I view my role in the round mainly as a trained observer and judge as teams do their work; I prefer teams to time themselves (and report the time) and I will rarely interrupt, direct, or ask for a card. However, I will note called cards and how they are subsequently used. If cards aren’t called or if points are left unchallenged, my assumption is your team agrees to their use – barring fundamentally untrue things ("racism good"). Note also that teams should extend the card’s argument and not just shorthand the author’s name.

Teams should independently, explicitly, at the beginning, address and agree upon how the round should be weighed; if not, my assumption is cost-benefit analysis.

I like roadmaps and prefer clear signposting throughout the round as these features allow all parties to be on the same page.

I can follow moderate speed – especially if it’s because you truly have a lot of strong links and evidence to present -- but if you go so fast that I miss your point, that’s on you. Same if you’re spreading or spending a lot of time talking but not actually saying anything, such as entire rounds spent on agreeing on definitions or other minutia.

Additionally, jargon doesn’t impress me; I spend my days breaking down jargon and complex topics for students, so I expect you to practice this real-world skill as well. Seeing your ability to adapt, contextualize, and show mastery without needing to resort to jargon is key for me.

During cross, ask questions to which you legitimately want answers and don't steamroll your opponents by interjecting so they can’t respond.

In your final focus, I prefer the focus to be on your case -- what are the main voters in the round and why your evidence should be preferred, why your impacts outweigh, why you should win, etc. – instead of your opponent’s case.

Updated 4/19/2024

Experience:

Policy Debate at Shawnee Mission West from 2009-2013 (social services, military presence, space, transportation)

Assistant Policy Coach/Judge for Des Moines Roosevelt 2014-2017

Judge for Dowling Catholic 2018-2022

Marketing/Communications at the NSDA 2018-2022

LD or PF

I judge policy debate 99.9% of the time. On the occasion that I'm in LD or PF, be fairly warned that I don't know your abbreviations or jargon, and I don't know your topic as well. Please explain your acronyms and any tech style arguments you're making. I want clear and specific impacts, and good analysis of your impacts vs. your opponent's.

POLICY

To sum up my paradigm, I value good argumentation and clash. I default as a policymaker, so if you want me to vote on something different, you have to tell me. I can follow pretty much any speed with good signposting and clear tags, but you need to slow down on theory/T/analysis that is tougher to flow. I will answer any questions before the round, and I think you should ask me about things to make this a good experience for us both!

Please note, I have not judged any rounds on this year’s topic. I consider myself fairly knowledgable about the topic areas, but might need further explanation on acronyms or hyper-topic-specific information.

Disadvantages: I think DAs are great. I think they're some of the most real-world argumentation that happens in policy debate. I value great clash and specific link debate.

Counterplans: Go for it.

Kritiks: I have never been a K debater, and I consider my debate IQ on the K to be very low. If you decide to run a K anyway, and want to get my ballot, you need to drop the jargon and explain your argument extremely clearly. To be crystal clear: running a K in front of me is going to be tough. I have a high bar for clarity and understanding, and if I don't understand what is happening, it's going to be hard for me to vote for you.

If you've read all that and still want to run a K and win the round, you need to do a few things:

1. Explain clearly why passing the affirmative plan is bad.

2. Explain what action signing the ballot takes -- focus on solutions. What does the alternative do? What does it solve?

3. Drop the jargon/high theory args and talk to me like I've never heard of debate.

I have been on panels where teams decide to throw out my ballot because they love the K. I believe this is a poor strategic decision.

Topicality: Unless you give me a good reason otherwise, I won't evaluate potential abuse, so don't run T unless the aff is actually untopical.

Theory: If you're going to read theory args, go slow. I flow on paper and it's super hard to flow if you just rattle them off. I will likely just stop flowing. Like I said in the T description, I most likely won't evaluate potential abuse, so don't run theory unless it's actually unfair.

I believe students should be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to tech issues at online tournaments. However, if I believe you are taking advantage to get extra prep time or cheat in another way, I will offer one warning before beginning to penalize the team.

I will not tolerate any forms of harassment in rounds that I am watching. If something you do constitutes harassment in my eyes, I will give you the lowest speaks possible and end the round.

My email is thegracerogers@gmail.com. You can put me on the email chain if you want, but I won't be following along with your speech doc -- I'll only look at evidence if I need to call for it after the round.

I am a fairly traditional judge but will listen to most any argument as long as it applies to the Resolution.

Please listen to your opponents arguments and have your rebuttal address their arguments.

I can listen to speed to a certain extent, but would rather not to have to tell you to slow down if I cannot hear the argument I cannot judge the argument.

I have coached and judged debate for 25 years.

I will not disclose in round unless told by the tournament to do so.