About Me

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

How I Evaluate the Round

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

Speaking Preferences

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

I prefer clear voters in debate rounds. The debaters should make it clear why they won the round on these factors. Another note, I debated for four years in PF so I am knowledgeable with how things should go. Most importantly, make sure you extend arguments in summary and final focus otherwise I can not give them weight. A line-by-line never hurts either and makes things much clearer for me.

Former PF Captain/ President of Carrollton High School Debate team. I am a Political Science Major at University of West Georgia and plan to go to law school.

I think that public forum should be accessible to any person that could come off the street and observe a round. With that in mind I believe that your speech should be clear, enunciated, and only moderately quick. If you spread it is likely I'll miss a lot more than if you are presenting clear, well thought out arguments and instead of just a wall of facts.

I judge a round based off of cost benefit analysis if no framework is offered. Rebuttals and summaries should be clearly organized, following down the flow of the opponent's case and ending with defense of your own case. Signposting is also very important for me to follow down the flow, especially if you are moving through arguments quickly. This makes it easiest for me to properly weigh links and such on the flow. In the final focus, you should weigh the opponent's case against your impacts and explain why your position outweighs. Anything in the final focus that hasn't been extended throughout the case is likely to be dropped.

I try to provide good RFD's both after round and on Tabroom, so you don't feel like you got screwed. This usually includes individual speaker constructive criticisms/comments only on the Tabroom RFD. If you have any questions about how I decided a round feel free to ask.

Speed: Do not lose clarity for quantity.

Substantive arguments should be well supported, organization helps the flow. My background is a history/philosophy/psychology/forensics teacher and debate coach. It is important to stay on topic, be concise and to directly address the resolution/topic.

I competed in public forum for my final three years and policy debate for my first at Carrollton High School and did so on the national scene. Currently I'm a student at the University of Georgia and make it out of "retirement" about once or twice a year for judging purposes. I only became aware of the necessity of having a posted Paradigm roughly an hour before they were due, so a lot of this was borrowed from a High School teammate of mine also judging at this tournament.

As far as judging goes, I can follow almost any speed of presentation, but given this is Public forum I would prefer to hear either emphasis or line by line analysis when your most important arguments are being given or compared to. I want voters broken down and made clear during summary and continued on through the final focus. Please don't try to bring up new arguments in summary or FF that weren't extended in prior speeches. I don't care about sitting or standing so long as all participants agree and are doing the same thing.

The following was taken word for word from Pate Duncan, but will hold completely true in my rounds as well.

"I grew increasingly disillusioned with the state of PF debate during my last few years of high school as it pertained to the use of cards. Let me be clear: I will not judge the round based on just a single card. Cards exist to support your arguments, and I want the team with the best evidenced, most logical, most elegant argument to win, and repeatedly reminding me of this one single card that you have that works as a "magic bullet" will not win the round with me."

Other than that I am open to any and all arguments as long as they are well warranted and supported with your evidence. If something important comes up in cross, make sure to mention it in your speech as I won't give ground on the flow for something only mentioned during crsx. Good luck to all, and if you have any questions prior to, during, or after your round I will be more than happy to answer them in as much depth as necessary.

I like voters, so you like voters too. Make sure to have voters, cause I vote on voters which is why they're called voters.

On another note, I come from a background of 4 years of PF debate. I'm fine with speed, in fact speed is great.

Make sure to extend arguments in Summary -> Final Focus if you want it to be a voter. A good line-by-line makes me happy, and makes my ballot much easier to write. And don't forget: I like voters.