Please be on time for check-in.

Email: Gracenicoleb@gmail.com

She/her

Background

• I did policy debate at Samford for 3 years
• 2x NDT qualifier
• Assistant coach of the SpeakFirst debate team

Top-level thoughts:

I prefer clear, slow speaking over fast, unintelligible speaking. With online debate, clarity is key. A lot of technology leaves failure points where I may miss something. I will be more likely to vote for the team that carefully explains their arguments over a team that provides more evidence but neglects warrants.

I will not vote for death good or warming good.

If I notice you are clearly clipping cards or are engaging in racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. remarks or behavior, I will vote you down. If you want to call out a team that you believe is clipping cards, debaters are innocent until proven guilty. Be prepared to have it recorded or have some other way for me to verify it.

Disclosure: Debaters should disclose. I am fine with disclosure arguments.

Judge kick: I will kick the cp for the neg if no one tells me not to.

Tech > Truth with limits. A dropped argument is assumed to be contingently true unless it is obviously unethical or when I go back and read your evidence, it does not say what you say it does. I will read most of the evidence in round but if you're answering a specific argument/link/internal link with a generic, I won't always accept that without contextualization. If you leave it up to me to resolve an argument, you get what you get.

More specific thoughts:

CP

I default to sufficiency framing. The Cp's viability as a winning argument is essentially a product of how much it resolves the aff's impacts and the magnitude of the NB. Also, if it is not 100% clear on the distinction between the cp and the plan, outline the differences for me. If the CP has no external net benefit-- it must solve better than the aff for some reason.

DA

Be clear on the link level- this means I don't want you to just read cards on why you don't link-- I want an explanation. I will vote for a DA if I think there is a small risk of a link and a significant probability of an impact. I will not vote for a DA if I feel like there is not a significant probability of an impact, even if there is a small risk of a link. There are downsides to every policy-- it's the burden of the neg to prove why their impacts outweigh.

K

You should start with the assumption that I know nothing about your literature base. I will vote for a K if it is specific and interacts with the Aff. I will not vote for generic Ks that are not explained well or lack evidence. Line-by-line is very important for these debates so don't just rely on cards. Unless told specifically otherwise, I assume that life is preferable to death. In order to convince me otherwise, you must prove that a world with no value to life/social death is worse than being biologically dead. My best piece of advice is that if you want me to vote for the K, you must prove how it SOLVES whatever the debate is about. If the K doesn't solve anything, expect an L. I think too often, Ks get away with cheap solvency. My only caveat here is that I am more likely to vote on bad rhetoric Ks/independent voters- these arguments are sometimes very convincing to me.

T

I am not the best person to judge a super in-depth T debate, but I'll do my best. I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could possibly be persuaded to vote another way. I tend to have a high threshold for voting on T so if you are going to go for it, commit to it. T outweighs condo 98% of the time.

Theory

I lean neg on theory. Condo- good and key to neg flex, but it's a debate to be had. For me to vote on generic condo, there needs to be something egregiously abusive going on in the round. My only caveat here is that I am more likely to vote on contra condo. I could be persuaded that going 5+ off with multiple contradictory conditional options is a voting issue for 2AC fairness and education. Any other theory argument I think is categorically a reason to reject the argument and not the team.

Resolution

Please read a plan. Without a plan, often the thesis of the aff gets lost, which is super frustrating. This doesn't mean I won't vote for you, but if you decide to not read a plan just make sure that you thoroughly explain what the aff does.

PF & LD

Do not drop line by line to summarize your arguments. I'm more likely to vote for the team that interacts with the other teams' arguments to accelerate their own. I'm fine with CPs, DAs, plans, etc. if you want to run them. Impact calc is a must and make sure you collapse down to your best arguments in the summary. Don't waste time on insignificant arguments you're not going for. You must explain the warrants of the evidence you read. I will not accept the extension of a tag. Lastly, I hate tricks and will vote you down if that's what you go for.

Hey everyone!!

I have been debating for 3 years in Public Forum and Congressional debate.

I will flow the round and judge you on how well you weigh the arguments. If you want to be judged on an argument, you need to bring it back up in every speech. Do not expect that I know an argument was wrong, tell me it is wrong and why.

If you are disrespectful to me or your opponents you will get low speaks and your confidence matters!

Have fun!

PF:

-Do not spread. On a scale of 1-10 for speed I prefer somewhere around 6-7. I would prefer you to slow down or pause a tad for taglines for my flow. Also if you list 4-5 short points or stats in quick succession, I probably will miss one or two in the middle if you dont slow down.

-Arguments you go for should appear in all speeches. If your offense was not brought up in summary, I will ignore it in FF.

-I do not think cross is binding. It needs to come up in the speech. I do not flow cross, and as a flow judge that makes decisions based on my flow, it won't have much bearing on the round.

-At the least I think 2nd rebuttal needs to address all offense in round. Bonus points for collapsing case and completely frontlining the argument you do go for.

-Please time yourselves. My phone is constantly on low battery, so I'd rather not use it. If you want to keep up with your opponents' prep too to keep them honest then go ahead.

-In terms of some of the more progressive things- I haven't actually heard theory in a PF round but I hear it's a thing now. If your opponent is being abusive about something then sure, let me know, either in a formal shell or informal. Don't run theory just to run it though. Obviously, counterplans and plans are not allowed in PF so just don't.

-pet peeves:

1) Bad or misleading evidence. Unfortunately this is what I am seeing PF become. Paraphrasing has gotten out of control. Your "paraphrased" card better be accurate. If one piece of evidence gets called out for being miscut or misleading, then it will make me call in to question all of your evidence. If you are a debater that runs sketchy and loose evidence, I would pref me very high or strike me.

2) Evidence clash that goes nowhere. If pro has a card that says turtles can breathe through their butt and con has a card saying they cannot and that's all that happens, then I don't know who is right. In the instance of direct evidence clash (or even analytical argumentation clash) tell me why to prioritize your evidence over theirs or your line of thinking over theirs. Otherwise, I will consider the whole thing a wash and find something else to vote on.

3) Not condensing the round when it should be condensed. Most of the time it is not wise to go for every single argument on the flow. Sometimes you need to pick your battles and kick out of others, or risk undercovering everything.

LD:
So first, I primarily judge PF. This means my exposure to certain argument types is limited. I LOVE actually debating the resolution. Huge fan. I'm cool with DAs and CPs. Theory only if your opponent is being overly abusive (so no friv). If you are a K or tricks debater good luck. I know about the progressive things but since I primarily judge PF, my ability to evaluate it is very limited from experience. If you want to go for a K or something, I won't instantly drop you and I will try my best to flow and evaluate it in the round. But you will probably need to tweak it a little, slow down, and explain more how it is winning and why I should vote for it. I come from a traditional circuit, so the more progressive the round gets, the less capable I am of making a qualified decision.

I do not want you to flash your case to me. I want to flow it. If you read to point that it is unflowable then it is your loss. If I don't flow it, I cannot evaluate it and thus, cannot vote on it. Spreading in my opinion is noneducational and antithetical to skills you should be learning from this activity. Sorry, in the real world and your future career, spreading is not an acceptable practice to convince someone and get your point across.

Both:
Please signpost/roadmap- I hate when it is unclear where you are and I get bounced around the flow. Have fun and don't be overly aggressive.

Public Forum:

I debated PF 4 years in high school. I have judged for PF for the past 3-4 years.

Round procedure:

Try not to spread. Your points are important and it is crucial that I catch what you are saying.

Address dropped arguments throughout the round.

Make sure you use authentic evidence because I will call for cards.

Stand for speeches, but what you do for cross is up to you.

Make sure you signpost.

Speaker points:

In addition to being able to carry out arguments, I will weigh in confidence, projection, ability to remain assertive and not become aggressive or hostile.

Respect is super important in a round. DO NOT cut off your opponent. While I do not flow cross, it can play a role in the speaker points.

My name is Matt Ferguson. I currently teach psychology and two film studies classes at Mountain Broook High School and for many I taught US History and a Government course. I have judged several tournaments in the past. Events included public forum, and several speech events.

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.

Make sure case is organized and well formatted 

Have clear tags and contentions 

make sure you are going line by line 

talking fast is fine as long as things are pronounced properly and I can hear you 

absolutely no spreading

I’m looking for how well you can defend your argument 

Hi! I'm Leigh I’ve been debating for 2 years;this is my 3rd year.

The things Ivoteon:

EVIDENCE! - this is Very important! please have full cards and citations, if it sounds fake i will ask to see the card!

Weighing- tell me WHY you win! If weighing is not brought up in summary i will not flow, it through in final focus.

Impacts!!! - why your points either hurt or benefit your reasoning and case.

Speakerpoints:

Off time road map please! Tell me where you are going.

I do prefer you to stand, you sound and look better doing so. Project your voice, if i can’t hear you, I can’t flow you. Any rude, homophobic, racist or sexist comments will not be tolerated.

ExtraInformation:

try to convince ME, not your opponent, you will not change your opponent's mind, you can only change mine. Be confident, if you’re confident you sound more convincing.

Be nice!You got this!Have fun! Debate is fun!

Remember, use the tools at hand, blockfiles, even your own case

BE KIND, any disrespect will lead to a reduction of speaker points

I will not be flowing cross, but cross is consistently considered the most important 9 minutes of a round

Always tech over truth, if you say that the world is gonna end because we're doing debate its true if they don't respond to it. Any claims given without a card will concede to an evidence backed arg unless it is objectively true (For example there is no need for a card explaining mutually assured destruction if you're opponents have a card saying otherwise I am not listening to them.)

Any argument more complicated than a counter plan will result in an automatic vote down (For Novice LD)

Remember this is a novice tournament

"Optimism is the faith that leads to achievement. Nothing can be done without hope and confidence" -Helen Keller (fictional character)

My Background

I debated in High School. I am currently a student at Auburn University studying Computer Engineering and Finance.

If I have made my decision after the round i will disclose (if allowed) but if it is a close round i might need more time to think.

Tech > Truth.

Personal Preferences

Make sure you are polite to your opponents.

I will call for evidence if you explicitly tell me to look at it. But it looks bad if you say their arg is bs and it's solid.

I like it when you collapse down to one or two arguments in summary (First or Second summary). I wouldn't advise going for everything if you have 3 or more arguments plus turns. I will still judge the round the same way if you don't collapse but it's easier for me to evaluate rounds without considering 5 args on each side.

Try and be very clear during your off time road map and during your speech where you are on the flow.

Also... I don't like speed. If you're case requires a speech doc to understand I would prefer your use your lay case. I can't stop you from spreading if you want. Excessive speed is exclusionary to smaller and less wealthy programs in my opinion.

If you don't offer a speech doc and then you proceed to spread I won't vote on anything I don't have written on my flow. I typically wont ask for one after constructive so its on you to make sure your judge understands and can flow your arguments.

Hello! My name is Nikita, I go to Auburn High School and this is my 2nd year debating.

Some advice for round

-be nice to your opponents (and me please)

-don’t say anything that is bigoted (racism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia will not be tolerated)

-try and use up all your time!

-WEIGH! And pull your impacts through!

I believe in y’all you’ll do great!

tech>truth: debate is a game

the best way to my ballot is to weigh. weighing is inherently comparative, warrant your weighing and compare impacts/links to each other

run whatever you want; but the more progressive your debate becomes, the more you will have to explain it to me

any speed is good, just be clear

don't give me a soliloquy for your off-time roadmap

for the love of god, give me warrants

please signpost; if I look lost, I probably am

i don’t pay attention to cross; if something important happens, then bring it up in your following speech

do not extend the entire flow

frontline responses

defense is sticky

i vote neg on presumption

if you want it in the final focus, it needs to be in the summary

if we are on a virtual platform, please don’t spread. some speed is okay, but i really value clarity when online

add me to the email chain: crhoades2002@gmail.com

Hello! My name is TJ Riggs and I'm a Junior Policy Debater at Samford University (Qualed to NDT 2022 and 2023) and head coach of the SpeakFirst debate team. I have been debating since sophomore year of high school at both the state and national level. I always try my best to avoid intervention and I will generally weigh tech over truth. That being said, I reserve the right to gut check egregiously false claims. I am a pretty active listener, so if you see me nodding my head then I am probably vibing with your args. If I look confused or unconvinced you'll probably see it on my face. I look forward to judging you!

INCLUDE ME ON THE EMAIL CHAIN: tjriggs03@gmail.com

Below is a more comprehensive list of my judging preferences:

1 - LARP/Policy

2 - Trad

3 - K's

4 - Dense Phil

Strike - Tricks

Preferences (LD):

Traditional (V/VC Framework): Traditional debate is where I got my start, and I always love hearing a solid traditional round. Framework is important, however I also heavily value the impact debate. Explicitly tell me why under your framework your impacts matter. Being able to tie your case together is essential.

Dense Phil: Eh, not really my favorite. I am generally unconvinced that intentions matter more than consequences in the face of extinction level scenarios. Not to say I won't vote on it but I probably should not be at the top of your pref sheet.

Tricks: Tricks are really stupid and bad for debate. I honestly don't even really care if your opponent just refuses to acknowledge them the whole round, I'm still probably not going to drop them for it. Go ahead and strike me :)

Adv/DA: Easy, clean debate. Please clearly announce when you are moving to the next advantage or disadvantage. If you are reading an advantage aff please read a plan, even if it’s “Plan: Do The Res”.

CP: Counterplans are always nice. Run them as you please, and I’m happy to listen. I don't love PIC's in LD but I will listen to them. 1 or 2 condo is probably ok, more than that starts to push it. 3+ contradictory options and it starts getting bad for you (NOTE: New affs probably justify infinite condo).

Theory/T: Theory and T are fine as long as it’s reasonably warranted. Topicality really has to be warranted or I’m not going to drop them for it. I think topic relevant definitions are important, I probably won't drop them because your dictionary.com definition of "the" meaning "all" probably won't convince me they aren't topical. Please make sure you are familiar with the format of Theory and T shells, don’t run them if you aren’t. I will listen to RVI arguments (LD not Policy). I will listen to Frivolous Theory because it is your time and you can do with it as you please but I won't give you the round over it, so its most likely a waste of your breath.

Kritiks: Topical Kritiks are fine. Non-topical Kritiks are not my favorite but if it is properly warranted i'll vote on it. Familiar with most standard K lit, anything fancy please explain well.

Preferences (Public Forum):

Email Chains: Up to debaters if they would like to chain.

Evidence Standard: Not a fan of paraphrasing. Let the experts who wrote your cards do the talking for you. I won't instantly drop you for paraphrasing ev, but I will read the evidence and am open to arguments from your opponent as to why paraphrasing is bad. Excessive exaggeration of what your evidence says will hurt your speaker points and possibly even your chance at the ballot.

Extending Arguments: Please argue the substance of your ev, not just the taglines. I am going to be much more inclined to buy your evidence if you thoughtfully explain why it specifically answers parts of the flow. Just saying "Extend Riggs 2021" is not sufficient. Carry your arguments through the flow, I should be able to draw a line from your constructive to your final focus and see the argument evolve throughout the round.

Speech Preferences:

Speed: I'm cool with any speed. Spreading is fine, but please articulate. If I can not understand you I will say "clear". Please do not go faster than you are capable of, many arguments can be made just as well by slowing down and sticking to the point.

Speaker Points: Clarity is key for speaks. Please be respectful to your opponent, being rude will result in points being docked.

If you have any questions about my judging style, experience, or preferences, please feel free to email me at tjriggs03@gmail.com

I am currently in my sixth year debating at Mountain Brook High School

Top Level Stuff

-Add me to the email chain and email me with any questions after the round: jacksonrshort@gmail.com

-Debate is a game; win the game

-Debate needs to be a fun activity; if you make me laugh you'll get an extra speaker point

PF

-I am comfortable with speed, but don't spread, it's PF, if you want to spread do a different event

-I'm ok with pretty much all kinds of progressive argumentation, but if I don't understand it, I can't vote off of it, so make sure you explain it well

-I generally think theory is a good thing (especially paraphrasing), but it really bothers me when teams read it simply as a cop-out. Only read theory if your opponent is doing something that merits it. That said, if your opponent is reading theory just to try to win the round and not address an actual issue, then call it out; I am very open to voting on a friv theory arg. Also, if you're not comfortable with it, don't read it; there are plenty of other ways to win the round.

LD

-I'm comfortable with speed, but if you spread send a speech doc

-Please please please implicate the round through your value and criterion; if you don't, I don't know what to vote on

-Generally comfortable with progressive debate

-If you read tricks or super philosophical arguments, explain them well. If I don't understand it I won't vote on it.

This will be my 5rd year serving as a judge (12th tournament). I have a child who is involved in debate with a focus on PF. I have judged mostly PF but also a number of LD rounds. I understand that speed is important to presenting all of your ideas on the topic, however, speed without clarity may lead to confusion or my inability to evaluate the argument. I also feel like all competitions should reflect good sportsmanship and be civil in nature. I prefer to have factual information to substantiate your case and support your argument. Please weigh in summary and final focus and make sure to present all of your arguments and analysis prior to the final focus. Finally, while many of these topics are serious discussions, remember to have fun. See you in round!

Experience:I did not compete in Debate in high school or college, but I have been assisting with a debate program and judging for the past four years. I usually judge Public Forum, but I have also judged speech events and Big Question Debate. I am currently in my ninth year of teaching social studies. I teach United States History and International Baccalaureate History of the Americas.

Preferences: I can follow relatively fast speaking but please don't spread.

i'm a junior and a varisty debater at Vestavia! i've been debating for 3 years now

**please be respectful to your opponents and judges. do not make any hateful (homophobic, racist, sexist, etc.) comments, you'll be reported and have an automatic loss

topshelf:

disclosure depends on 1) vibe of the round and 2) if i'm allowed to disclose

tech > truth (ex: if you read a card saying pigs will fly, i'll believe it until it's properly disproven)

speed is fine --> if you spread, pls send me the case doc

try to time yourself for your speeches and prep time (i'll also try to time you)

preferences:

pls provide off time roadmaps before your speech (ex: aff then neg)

try to signpost during your speech (tells me where you are on the flow)

i don't flow cross so if something important happens --> bring it up in your speech!

please extend!!. make sure you extend important args and why you win them (warrants) along withyour impacts throughout the round

weigh, weigh, weigh!!! tell me how your impacts are bigger/better than your opponents

anything said in final focus needs to have been said in summ. no new evidence after 1st summ --> i won't flow it through (per NSDA rules)

-----

be confident, you got this :)

HAVE FUN AND GOOD LUCK!!!

for email chains or questions: mwhitener017@gmail.com

I prefer a clear, evidenced-based debate.

Don't let my experience fool you into thinking I like fast, jargony debates.

Use an email chain - include me (lizannwood@hotmail.com) on it, and be honest about the evidence. Paraphrasing is one of my biggest pet peeves. (Post-rounding and making me wait for endless exchanges of evidence are the others).

I will leave my camera on, so you can see me. You can trust you have my full attention, and if connectivity issues affect any of the speeches, I'll audibly interrupt you and stop the timer till connections improve (within reason, of course).

If the timer is stopped, no one is prepping.

Avoid talking over each other online -it makes it impossible for your judges to hear either of you.

Don't be rude or condescending. You can be authoritative while also being polite.

Experience:

Mountain Brook Schools Director of Speech and Debate 2013 - current

Mountain Brook High School debate coach 2012-2013

Thompson High School policy debater 1991-1995

Hey, I'm Anton Yang, a sophomore at Montgomery Academy. This is my second year competitively debating PF

If you are going to read fast, I recommend emailing me your case so I can keep up while you talk my email is anton_yang@montgomeryacademy.org

Read whatever (egregiously untrue) argument you want; I try to be flexible. If your opponent doesn't talk about it, I'll flow it. (basically I buy all arguments unless the opponent disproves them.)

If you say the US increasing military presence in the Arctic leads to the monkeys taking over the world and the opponent never responds, I'm flowing it

obviously dont say anything discriminatory/hateful

Please dont spread, this is a novice tournament

WEIGH/tell me why your impacts matter more. (very important, every judge is gonna say this)

I don't flow on cross but if you expose flaws in cross and bring it up later it becomes part of the round

I am a lay judge but a former English teacher and librarian. I insist on credible sources, quality research, and a well-organized debate. Please use introductory statements, transitions, and make frequent connections between the resolution and your contentions. If I cannot follow your argument, I cannot vote for it. Weigh your impacts, tell me why your evidence is better, and tell me why your argument should win. Avoid spreading. AND PLEASE do not waste time when calling for evidence. It really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Be respectful of your opponents, have fun, and present your best self.