Hey y'all

I'm a fourth-year debater from Vestavia Hills High School.

Case: Make sure your case has impacts. It is hard for me to vote on an argument that doesn't tell me how or which population is affected by their impacts. However, make sure you also have warrants. Even if your case has big numbers, I will not evaluate any of your impacts if you don't give me any explanations as to how you get there. Don't worry if your case does not get to 4 minutes; I still evaluate all arguments presented in that timeframe.

Speaking: Speak clearly. For me, you can go a little bit fast and I will still be able to understand your argument. However, I will indicate for you to slow down if you are going too fast. Most importantly, mumbling is gonna negatively affect your speaker points and make it a lot harder to understand. Send speech docs if you plan on spreading. Email is aaryaaluri143@gmail.com

Prog: By all means go ahead and do it. Just beware that my experience with progressive args is pretty limited to theory. I'll evaluate it to the best of my abilities.

Rebuttal: Prioritize offense over defense. In 1st rebuttal, do not go back onto your case unless it is an absolute necessity and you believe you have no other way to fill the 4 minutes. Weighing is not a necessity in 1st rebuttal but it would be good if you started weighing early in round. Weighing should be in 2nd rebuttal. No talking between teammates in rebuttal or any speech for that matter. 2nd rebuttal must respond to all offense that 1st rebuttal brings. 2nd rebuttal would be good to collapse but it is not required for me. Defense is not sticky.

Weighing: WEIGHING IS NECESSARY. I must know why your argument is more important than theirs to be able to vote for you. Additionally, weighing can't be one-sided. You must weigh COMPARING your impact to theirs as opposed to just restating their impact. It can start in rebuttal but IT MUST START IN SUMMARY.

Summary: 1st summary MUST COLLAPSE ON ONE ARGUMENT. Summary must also respond to all offense presented on ALL of their contentions. Summary must also have clean extensions of their case and turns in order for them to stay on my flow. 2nd summary is largely a reactive speech that must respond to the points brought up by 1st summary.

Final Focus: Largely resembles summary. NO NEW INFORMATION IN FINAL FOCUSES. Weighing, case extensions and turn extensions must be present.

Have fun with this activity. It gives back what you give it. You make connections the more you stay in the activity. I will do my best to ease your nerves and help y'all grow in this adventure.

YOU'RE GONNA KILL IT!!!!

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.

Congratulations! You have the best judge in the tournament.

I am currently a coach, president and debater at the University of Maryland at Eastern Shore. I debated throughout high school at Auburn High and was president.

Let’s get to the point of how you win a round with me:

Do’s

-You can speak as fast as you like as long as I understand you. If you start to speak fast and slur your words I will stop flowing. There are ways to speed read and still be understood(I know because I do it).

-Use your prep time. There is nothing worse than not using prep time and then doing a speech start to finish and you missed half of what your opponents said. Use the time!

-I prefer facts over probability and hypotheticals. If you get up there and tell me that the world is going to end or 1 billion people die Aff or Neg I will simply start playing Monopoly Go on my phone. Let’s try and stick to the facts and research pretty please.

Don’t’s

-Don’t contradict yourself. If you got something wrong it’s better to admit it then to go back on what you said, it makes you look bad.

-Don’t say anything you wouldn’t want a class full of kindergarten kids to hear. Be kind.

Perfect speaks: Give me an interesting fact in final focus(won’t go against your time) and I’ll give you perfect speaks.

Grand Cross: I absolutely can not stand grand cross because it turns into a fussing match. If you would like- but BOTH teams need to agree on it BEFORE -the first speech, you may skip this and use it for extra prep time that is completely fine with me.

Final Note: I do allow you at the end of the round to email me websites or pieces of research that your opponent may have fabricated. If it helps you win a round then by all means do it. I will look at them before I make my decision.

I will disclose if we are allowed too, and will give critiques if you would like them.

Good luck.

& remember it’s just a debate round, don’t let us stress you out, this is coming from someone who does debate in college and let’s it stress them out. do not be like me.

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.

My name is Sarah Chew, and I'm a JV college debater at Samford. I have a year and a half of policy debating experience behind me.

I value clarity, demonstrated understanding of the topic/arguments, and well-thought-out analytics > otherwise unsupported evidence. When you extend evidence, keep flows clear, and do the work to address the arguments on the other side. Be kind both to your own partner and to the competition - one of my pet peeves is cutting off your partner or acting like debate is a one person show. I will give you my full attention and respect while speaking, so you should do the same. Don't steal prep.

If you have questions, please let me know! I'd love to chat! My email is secchew@gmail.com

Hello!! I'm looking forward to judging this round with you.

My background: I debated for four years at Vestavia doing Public Forum and Congress debate and am now a sophomore Law, Politics, and Society major at Samford.

I'm pretty flexible when it comes to how you want to debate but here are just some short preferences and tips that will make the round more enjoyable for all of us:

1. Do NOT be overly aggressive. This is debate, it gets heated, its fun, I get it. But if you are out right rude to your opponent or speak in a manner that doesn't reflect the intellectual and educational atmosphere we are in I will dock your speaker points.
2. I'll keep time but do your best to as well, that just makes you look more professional. There will be a few seconds of grace period but don't steal time.
4. Evidence ethics are cool, but don't waste excessive time calling for cards unless you need it -- if you won't be talking about the evidence/quote/stats/etc. in a speech or cross let's keep it short.

I'm cool with speed but don't start spreading -- I would rather you say a few important points really clear than 50 not very important points super fast.

After I submit the ballot to tab I am more than willing to disclose after the round if it is asked for! As your judge I will do my very best to give clear and precise feedback about the decision I made and what can be improved.

Email me with questions, concerns, speech docs, or for an email chain cundiff.linden@gmail.com

Dr. Danielle Deavours
Assistant professor, broadcast journalism
Samford University
Former debater and volunteer with Samford Debate Team
ddeavour@samford.edu

Education

PhD, University of Alabama, 2022, media sociology
M.A., University of Alabama-Birmingham, 2019, communication management
B.A., University of Alabama, 2008, telecommunication & film/political science

Professional employment

Samford University, assistant professor, 2022-current
University of Montevallo, assistant professor, 2020-2022
University of Alabama, PhD student and graduate research/teaching assistant, 2019-2021
UAB Medicine, communication and marketing specialist, 2016-2019
American Heart Association, state communication and marketing director, 2015-2017
American Red Cross, communication and marketing director, 2014-2015
WVTM-13, executive producer, 2011-2014
CBS 42, executive producer, 2011
CBS 8, executive producer, 2009-2011

Debate history

Former high school debater in LD, PF, policy, and extemporaneous

Things to know

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. Make sure you're telling me clearly what I should vote on, where you did better than your opponent in making the argument, and ways that your position is stronger. I shouldn't have to guess at why you think you won.

I am a big believer in public speaking and speaker points as a large part of the debate world. I want to feel persuaded, make sure you're connecting with me through eye contact, direct address, and voice emphasis. Don't just read the entire time, although some reading is of course acceptable.

Collegiality and respect of all people is integral to debate. If you cross the line from assertive to aggressive, you will have speaker points deducted. If you cross the line into harassment, you will lose the debate even if you logically win it.

I keep a running clock and "read along" with speech docs where applicable. Err on the side of truth, and make sure your sources are credible.

I will flow your arguments. Successful teams should interact with the other team's arguments and prioritize good line-by-line arguments. If you're not addressing your opponent's arguments, it's likely they will be able to harm your case - perhaps fatally.

Speak as quickly as is comfortable for you, but I need to be able to understand you. As a former spreader, I can understand fast speeds, but make sure you are speaking clearly and with enough emphasis for the judge to understand you. I prefer to be able to understand your speech as opposed to speed. If you are spreading, I prefer you share documents with the judge and your opponent. Speed doesn't always mean that you get more evidence in, especially quality evidence.

Hello. My name is Ella Ford, and I am a Varsity debater at Samford University. I am a second-year policy debater.

Please include me on the email chain: eford2@samford.edu

Some things to know about me:

1) My decisions are unbiased, which will be reflected in the comments I make. You are welcome to talk to me after the debate if you think I have been unfair in some way.

2) I am most likely to vote for the team that presents appropriate literature and demonstrates an understanding of the topic.

3) I lean towards tech over truth, but I will evaluate based on the situation.

4) I will flow your arguments. Successful teams should interact with the other team's arguments and prioritize good line-by-line arguments.

5) Speak as quickly as is comfortable for you. I prefer to be able to understand your speech as opposed to speed.

Feel free to email me with questions.

For policy debate,

I am sympathetic to conditionality bad arguments by the affirmative, however, if the negative spends a good amount of time in their next speech answering conditionality then there is no reason for the affirmative to bring it back up.

To be persuaded by topicality arguments, you should provide me with definitions and explanations for why those definitions make your interpretation better.

HI'm a JV debater at Samford University.

I flow every debate, make sure your arguments will show up on the flow.

INCLUDE ME ON THE EMAIL CHAIN: maddieb0329@gmail.com

Things to be aware of:

1) My decisions are always neutral and unbiased to the degree that I can make them. Feel free to email me or ask any questions after the debate.

2) I am most likely to vote for a team that uses reliable evidence and demonstrates clear understanding of the topic.

3) I have a SUPER low tolerance for rude and disrespectful comments in my presence. I don't care if it is before, during or after the debate. Be respectful.

4) I am most likely to vote for a team who interacts with the opposing teams arguments/claims.

5) I appreciate when teams keep up with their own prep time.

SpeechPreferences:

Please do not go faster than you are capable. If you are not able to clearly enunciate your evidence you need to slow down for the sake of the debate. Speed is not key to winning a debate.

Hi my name is Mary Grace Hammond and I am a member of the college debate team here at Samford University. I have debated 3 semesters in policy debate.

You can add me to the email chain: mgraceh77@gmail.com

Somethings to keep in mind

1: I expect you to be courteous to your opponents in and out of round. Assertive and confident arguments do not necessitate unprovoked in round aggression I will not hesitate to deduct speaker points for this.

2: Make sure to stay organized. Make arguments in order and make it clear what you are answering. The more organized your line by line is the more likely I will be able to follow the arguments you are making and give you points. Please do not go so fast that it hurts your coherency. If I do not understand something you are saying you will not receive points for it.

3: Keep track of your prep time. I will deduct speaker points for this if it is a repeated issue in round.

4: I will make as fair and unbiased a decision as possible. If you have a problem with the decision you are welcome to talk to me after the round or even email me after the tournament to discuss the results in further detail.

specific arguments:

kritiks:

I am familiar with kritiks but I am primarily a policy debater keep this in mind when framing your arguments. If I don't get a well explained and specific link story for your Kritik I will not put the extra mental work in for you to vote on it.

Topicality:

I need a clear abuse story that is clearly weighed against the supposed benefits of the aff. You need to clearly tell me why this argument is bad for debate as a whole and explain the implications of that. My threshold for technical skill on this argument is high so be aware of that. Voting on this may be somewhat opinion based in closer debates be aware of that risk when strategizing in round.

most regular policy arguments (counterplans, disads, and PICS) are all fair game and the most familiar arguments to me.

Hey, I'm Maggie. I debated all four years of high school (public forum), and now I am in college debating policy. I am well-versed in debate rhetoric and research, both of which are important in each round. Add me to the email chain if there is one available, maggiej2004@gmail.com .

For public forum debates, I a generally okay with every argument as long as you have adequate sources to back it up. I try to keep any biases outside of the round I am judging, however, you still must tell me where to vote. The only time I'm going to "judge-intervene" is if both teams give me no weighing mechs. I am more inclined to vote for a team, even if they are behind on the flow, if they give me weighing mechs.

Other than that, I am very flexible. I would prefer no spreading in public forum rounds just because other debaters might not be used to the speed. However, I can keep up with any speed you may like. If you are trying to speak fast/spread, please please please make sure you are still understandable. Anything I cannot understand will not go on the flow.

I will give an RFD at the end of the round, as long as time permits. Feel free to ask any questions at that time about the decision or suggestions.

You may also ask me any questions before the round starts.

Good luck everyone. :)

I debated PF for Centerville High School in Ohio for four years and coached the middle school team for three years. I am a senior at Vanderbilt University coaching the University School of Nashville's debate team.

I competed at a few national circuit tournaments, but most of my debating was done on the local circuit. I have judged all debate formats but have not competed in all of them. Most of this paradigm relates to PF but in terms of Policy, I am open to hearing every argument and will evaluate based on the flow.

Add me to the email chain at sung.jun.jeon@vanderbilt.edu. If you spread, send a speech doc.

In terms of a PF round, here are a few things that I want to see:

1) You don't have to read direct quotes. I am fine with paraphrasing. However, if I find that you are misconstruing your evidence to make your claim, then I won't vote for that specific argument. Your speaks probably will go down as well if your opponents call you out for misconstruing evidence.

2) If you are speaking second, make sure to frontline any offense. I think it is strategic to frontline everything but at the minimum frontline turns.

3) I won't flow cross-fire, but if something major happens, make sure to address it in the next speech.

4) When extending cards and offense in the latter half of the round, make sure that you explain the warranting behind it.

5) If evidence is called, make sure to produce it in a timely manner. Also, I will call for evidence if you tell me to call for evidence.

6) Don't just dump responses. Explain what your evidence indicates and how this piece of evidence is significant in responding to your opponent's case.

7) I like to see you start weighing in rebuttal. I think it is strategic to set up the weighing earlier in the round and then carry that through summary and final focus.

How I vote:

If you want me to vote on a certain argument, it should be in both summary and final focus. Your argument should be explained in a clear manner and your impacts should be extended. Weighing your argument and impacts against your opponent's argument and impacts will make your path to the ballot easier. I will try not to intervene, but please weigh arguments comparatively to make my job easier as a judge. If not, I will have to decide which arguments are more important.

If there is no offense generated from each side (highly unlikely), then I will default to the first speaking team. If you say things that are sexist, racist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, or are extremely rude in any way, I will drop you and give you low speaks. The debate should be civil and debaters should be respectful.

Please do not postround me. I do encourage you to ask questions about the round and why I voted the way I did. I am always looking for feedback to improve my judging.

If you have any additional questions, let me know.

I am a lay judge and have been judging speech and debate for about 6 years. I believe that debate should include a clear presentation of your arguments and evidence. I also believe your speeches should be well organized. In the end, I will value argument over style, but the way you present your arguments is important to my understanding of those arguments. If you call for evidence, please have a legitimate reason for it. I don't like spending a lot of prep time on it. I expect you to time yourselves, but I will be timing too. I like clear, organized flows with clear voters at the end. I weigh heavily on impacts so compare your impacts and convince me that yours are stronger. Please be civil and respectful to your partner and competitors.

My background is in theatre and speech. I love judging speech events and will typically vote for the presenter who has the strongest emotional connection to their piece and the audience. There must be an effective balance of design, style, and presentation. The pieces that showcase who you are as a performer as well as communicating something new and fresh are welcome.

Good luck in today's debate! I am a veteran Lincoln-Douglas debater from Saint James School in Montgomery, where I debated locally and nationally in high school. I was excited about debate then and still am now! After I graduated college and law school I worked for a long time as an attorney and now serve as a federal judge. Free speech and advocacy are a big part of what makes our country special, and I am thrilled that you have chosen to invest your time and talents in civil discourse.

I'm a pretty traditional judge. You can trust that I'm completely unbiased (I maintain my impartiality as part of my everyday work life), and you should not expect to win my ballot if you're not a persuasive advocate. You'll have to speak clearly and make sure that I understand your argument before you can have any expectation that I'll accept it. Spread at your own risk. If your opponent spreads, think big thoughts about how you can slow the round down and still win. In this kind of debate, the gutsy debater with a few good arguments (or even only one) is often more effective than the fastest speaker with loads of weaker things to say. Proper decorum is a must - I'm completely confident that you can be effective without being rude. Stand up straight, make eye contact, and be your best self. Good luck!

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.

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.

Laurel Pack (she/her) Varsity public form debater 2020-2023. Current JV policy debater at Samford University.

Email: laurel.a.pack@gmail.com (use this email for any questions before round and for the email chain)

Policy Paradigm

T:

Line-by-line/reasons to prefer are super important to me when extending T into the block. However, I ask that you slow down and annunciate clearly on the T arguments that aren't carded. I also generally lean aff on T, so long as they prove being neg isn't impossible and there is a substantial literature base.

Condo:

Contradictory condo is your strongest story if you run condo. Otherwise, unless condo is not responded to at all (or not responded to sufficiently) I will probably have a pretty difficult time voting on condo over substance of the round.

CP Theory

CPs need to be competitive with the aff and the neg has to make that clear. If I think the CP can happen in the same world as the aff, I probably won't vote neg on the CP. I also don't belive in judge kick, the debater should have to do the strategic work in the round and decide if the CP is worth going for. I also think there should be more focus on CP framing, should the CP solve all of the aff to be sufficient? Not sure. Don't ignore the top-level stuff.

Kritiks:

I think affirmative should defend a plan, ideally this is a topical policy action. I am not a judge who is comfortable judging a kritikal or performance aff. I am also probably not a good judge for a k v k round. I am most comfortable evaluating the K on the neg. I also prefer alts to be specific. My ideal alt would be to advocate for a specific movement or mindset that can proveably resolve the impacts of the aff. Please don't make the alt "reject the aff." The alt should do something. Finally, please don't assume I'm an expert on the literature base you're reading from, you will probably have to walk me through the links clearly and make sure you spell out how we get from point a to point b.

Final Thoughts:

Don't be unethical. No arguments like climate change good. If you read authors who are morally questionable I will absolutely drop the card and will be willing to listen to a procedural about it. I also won't read cards after round unless there is a dispute about what the card says/what it means.

PF Paradigm

TLDR:

• The team speaking first should start an email chain with everyone so exchanging cards is easier. If you're disclosing cases, the case should be a PDF or a WordDoc.
• If your team is doing the second rebuttal, you MUST frontline (spend about a minute on it). No new frontlines should be read in the second summary.
• Your final focus should only be going for 1 of the arguments presented in constructive. Pick a scenario and stay with it, this should be done in summary.
• When you are going for an argument in final focus, every part of it should be extended (uniqueness, link, and impact). An argument without any of those components is not very useful.
• If someone reads a turn, even if you are not going for that argument, you HAVE to respond to the turn before you drop the contention. I consider it offense if the other team decides to point it out.
• SUPER IMPORTANT: Don't look at me in cross exe when you're answering a question, the feeling is reminiscent of when people sing happy birthday to you but you don't know what to do.
• Be nice :)
• I tend to make a lot of facial expressions, please consider them ALL neutral. I have really bad eyesight, most of the time if I look like I'm confused or angry, I'm probably squinting to look at something on my computer. I also worry that I tend to look angry but please don't let this discourage you (I'm most definitely not angry).
• Ask me any questions about my paradigm before the round if you have any, I'm always happy to explain things

More info:

• Constructive: Not much to note, go as fast as you feel comfortable. Warning: I find it really difficult to vote for cases with just one contention (unless it has multiple subpoints) I also very rarely see good cases with three contentions. In 99.9% of cases, the third contention is just one card which wastes time (this time could be better spent reading another card on either of the first contentions).
• Rebuttals: A strong line-by-line is key to the ballot. You should have one or two responses to every point of their argument (uniqueness, link impact) (Signposting is also really important here, please tell me exactly what argument you're addressing). When you give an off-time roadmap, stick to it. Don't say you're starting on their case then start time and go to your own case. This was mentioned above but if you're going second, frontline pretty please.
• Summary: Having a good summary is key to not losing a round. My ideal order of a summary would be collapsing (identifying which scenario your side is focusing on for the rest of the round + responding to any turns read), then immediately weighing the scenario you are going for, and then REALLY in-depth frontlining on everything they read against it in rebuttal. Then, move to their case, talk about why you outweigh any of their scenarios (pre-requisite or turns case arguments are really useful here), and then extend your rebuttals. Note: Summary is a super difficult speech, don't feel like the round is over if you miss one of these things, all will be well. Also, I'm really suspicious of new arguments in the first summary (unless they're frontlines) and I do not accept new arguments in the second summary. If the other team points out you made a new argument in second summary, it won't be evaluated. I will also probably evaluate that argument last, even if they don't point it out.
• Final focus: Extend all the parts of the argument/scenario you're going for and then WEIGH. Literally, be so dramatic during this speech. Ideally should be split half and half between your case and their case, covering their case should focus on what you think are the MOST devastating arguments (arguments they didn't respond to or the ones you find most compelling)
• Cross exe: Please please please be nice. There is nothing I hate more than a super-aggressive cross exe. You can be witty, and sassy, and funny, but there is a very big distinction between that and angrily dominating the conversation. Also, cross exe is binding if the other team points it out (i.e. don't concede the entire case in cross because you think it won't matter).
• Misc. Thoughts: I am constantly saddened by the state of PF. Debates become really repetitive and very surface-level. Clash and creativity are the easiest way to win my ballot. I will 9/10 prefer the smarter, well-thought-out, and compelling argument to one that's super polished but really insufficient in warranting or links.

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

Name: Grace Scott

Pronouns: she/her

Email: 84gracescott@gmail.com

My name is Grace Scott. I am a junior at Samford University. I came into the debate community new freshman year, and have really been enjoying the rigor and joy of this singular activity.

TLDR:

Context is king.

Don't be an jerk, be effective.

Re: Prep time. 1) USE IT ALL. 2) Be transparent if things get funky – tech time, delays, etc

Essentials:

I value arguments that are brought up consistently and clearly.

Regarding evidence v analytics, I value clash. The context of how an argument is being made changes how I value it. For example, if someone makes a point, contextualizes it in the debate, and uses evidence to back it up, I value that over analytics no matter how good the analytics are. However, if evidence is used in a rote manner that does not engage the other side and the opponent's analytics are highly specific, responsive, and intelligent, I will prefer the analytics. It's contextual, so be specific and responsive.

I don't value hostility in cross x. Cross x is for clarifying and communicating to your opponents and to your judge. You don't need to be passive, but if the hostility is such that it doesn't move the ideas forward, you are wasting time for both of us.

When giving my RFD, my goal is to communicate how I understood the debate and give you feedback you can use to improve your debating.

To avoid my pet peeves:

Don’t leave time on the clock. It is better to stand up there in the painful silence and shuffle through your flows. This gives you time to think analytics off the fly and shows tenacity. Lay judges may appreciate the politician like appearance of composure. I want to see you practice skills that will win you debates.

COMMUNICATE WITH ME ABOUT TECH ISSUES.

I am not here to police your prep time. You are honorable competitors, and I am not a cop. I trust that when you are running prep time you are prepping, and when the timer has stopped you are transitioning to giving a speech.

If you feel like your opponents are stealing prep, feel free to call them out (respectfully and professionally). I'm cool with it. My partner and I do so regularly. A simple, "Are y'all running prep?" or "And how much time do y'all have left?" will suffice.

If you run into a problem outside your control, let me know and use your tech time (equivalent to your prep time), it’s there for a reason. Narrating what you are doing, “I’m saving the document” “I’m pressing reply all” “The doc is attached and once it loads, I will press send” are great ways to ensure transparency.

I would love to chat with you about debate, or about Samford debate. Feel free to shoot me an email if you have further questions.

Please be on time for check-in. Also if you're interested in college debate, I'd love to talk to you about Samford debate!!

If you have any questions about things not on my paradigm, feel free to ask before the round or email me.

Email: joeytarnowski@gmail.com

he/him

Background

Policy debate at Samford (class of 24), qualified to NDT 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024

4 years of LD in high school

Judging

Don't say/run things that are egregiously offensive, i.e. racism/sexism/etc. good, death good, etc.

I would recommend starting off your speech at like 75-80% speed to give me a second to adjust before you build up to full speed. Clear differentiation between tags and the card body is also appreciated.

I do a lot of work on both the policy and critical side of debate in college. I generally am of the predisposition that the aff should defend some implementation of the resolution, the specifics of what that may mean is flexible, but choosing to mostly or entirely jettison the resolution is not the best strategy in front of me. I think Ks on the neg are most successful when forwarding a nuanced indict of some underlying assumptions/mechanisms of the aff, and that affs are typically most successful in reasons why the neg is not able to explain key portions of the aff and leveraging that against the K's explanation of the world.

I'm generally more neg leaning on CP theory debates and typically default heavily to reasonability and rejecting the argument, but I think especially egregious practices can make me swing more toward the middle on issues like condo (i.e. 2NC CPs out of straight turns or kicking planks on CPs with a ton of planks that do a ton of different things). Love a good impact turn debate, hate a stale impact turn debate. Otherwise I don't have any especially notable preferences when it comes to policy arguments, impact calc at the top is always good, evidence comparison is great, etc.

I'm an ok judge for T but am not the biggest fan of it as a throwaway strategy that only occupies a small portion of the neg block. Significant time investment in evidence comparison is much more important to me here and often is a make-or-break.

Note for LD: I would not consider myself a good judge for "tricks". If you regularly do things like hide blippy theory arguments or rely on obfuscating tactics to win debates, I am probably not the best judge for you.

Local/Lay Debate

First and most importantly, I am excited to be judging you and glad you are a part of this activity!

I will disclose my decision and give any feedback I can as long as it is not explicitly prohibited by the tournament, and strongly believe the process of disclosure/feedback/asking questions is one of the most important parts of debate. You are always welcome to ask questions about my decision, ask for advice, clarification, etc. or email me and I will always be happy to help in whatever ways I can (assuming you aren't blatantly rude).

I did a lot of lay debate in high school, it was probably 80% or more of what I did, so I can really appreciate a slower debate. My advice for you is to do what you do best and are most comfortable with, don't feel like you have to spread or read positions you are unfamiliar with because of my policy background, as I started out and have spent almost half of my debate career doing slow, traditional debate. Some other things you should know:

1] One of the most important aspects of my judging is that I think the bar for explanation is generally too low for most debates. If you want to win an argument, you shouldn't just explain what your argument is, but the reasoning behind WHY it's true, as well as what the implication is for that argument being true.

2] Please make sure you have and can show me the full text of any evidence you read. I may not need to reference any evidence after the round, but if I do I would prefer you have it readily available. I would heavily prefer this is made easier by setting up an email chain with me and your opponent where all evidence read in-round is exchanged, both for the purposes of transparency and quality of things like evidence comparison.

3] I often find framework debates in lay LD have little direction or warrants. This is especially true when both sides have a similar or identical framework, and I think those debates would often be drastically improved by the neg just conceding framework and the rest of the debate focusing just on substance.

I also really appreciate folks who have a clear understanding of things like evidence comparison and strategy, I feel most people overlook the ability to make smart strategic decisions and leverage evidence comparison in lay debate. Knowing your evidence and author qualifications and effectively utilizing them are powerful strategic tools, as well as making smart strategic concessions in other parts of the debate to get things like a strong time tradeoff on other important parts of the debate.

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.

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.

Hi! I am so excited to be judging today. My pronouns are He/Him.

I am the father of a debater, but not one myself. I am a Lay judge and a lawyer, so I can follow basic argumentation.

I will be flowing to the best of my ability, but speech docs would be appreciated. Please weigh and do so explicitly. If you're planning to spread, it would be significantly easier for me to flow if you could add me to an email chain (wolfe.tom@gmail.com). I keep a flow but please don't assume I instantly know which card you're talking about unless you slightly explain it (or its a big factor in the round).

Clear voters please.

Good luck and have fun!

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.