Background: Debated mostly Policy Debate for 4 years at Marist School although I did a couple of PF tournaments here and there.

Email: bnq2658@gmail.com

Last Update 11/16/16

Policy Paradigm

Summary: I usually prefer DA Case CP debate but K's are fine if I can understand it. Really don't want to vote on theory though. 

General Things

• I don't take prep for flashing or emailing unless the tournament is running behind or tab is nagging me to get done faster
• Keep the debate calm and more relaxed
• I probably won't look at evidence unless it is specifically indicted or highlighted

China Topic

• I haven't had a lot of experience with this topic so please don't use too many abbreviations and acronyms
• I don't know much about China policy as of this year but I know a good amount of Japanese politics and policy if that helps you at all

Case

• Please don't read an econ impact in front of me if your internal links aren't amazing. I study economics and unless your internal link and solvency cards are by economists with a ton of numbers. I like warming impacts and sciencey impacts like nuclear fusion since they interest me and I would probably more likely to pay attention to them
• I'm getting tired of heavy impact debates and overviews. It seems like most of the time the debate boils down to nothing
• Solvency debates and debates about the actual aff are the most enjoyable for me since they make the debate less generic. They also have to be explained a lot more in detail since I probably won't know it

DA

• I really like DA debates
• The DA debate is probably going to be won or lost at the link level so I would probably focus on that 

Counterplans

• I like CP's but I'm sometimes easily confused about what they do so you have to make it clear in CX or the 2NC as to what it does
• I'm fine with judge kicking the CP even if you don't say it, given you extend case

K's

• I'm very hit or miss when it comes to K's. Often I get very confused by the barrage of information 2N's introduce in the block. Here's my advice if you decide to go for a K in front of me, slow down when you get to the K flow and explain everything as if I've never debated before
• K debates are way too technical and I hate that. Debate the K like how your authors would, slowly and philosophically 
• The link debate is honestly the only important thing about the K debate. If you run a K, I'm pretty much going to agree that you that you will outweigh the aff. I will, however, give you a much higher threshold to meet for the link so you need to spend about 75% of your time on the link debate
• K tricks are stupid and cheap ways to win rounds so I'm probably not voting for them 
• On the aff the first thing you should do is just hammer that 1NC link evidence. It's usually super generic 

T

• I probably won't for T unless it is pretty much obvious that the aff is untopical. I'm probably going to default to reasonability
• If it is a questionable aff, then please make the impacts clear and go slow. 
• If you prove that the aff is untopical but still lose the impact debate then I'll probably still just vote for you

Non-Traditional Arguments

• I honestly don't know how I feel about these since I've only encountered a single unorthodox debate. I would prefer it if your argument is topical
• If you do something really weird I'm probably going to have this confused look on my face and default to the more orthodox team

Theory

I hate voting on theory. Please don't make it a theory debate and if you do slow down. Theory about one specific argument is a reason to reject the argument.

• Word PICs: have to be extremely justifiable
• 50 State Fiat: stupid but not an immediate reason to reject
• International Fiat: good
• Consult and Conditions CP's: depends on the solvency advocate
• Condo: probably won't vote on unless dropped or perfcon
• Multiplank CP's: fine if you have a solvency advocate for each plank
• CP Perms: can make the CP go away, not sure about it as an advocacy
• K Perms: kind of dumb. Just go for the no link

I am a traditional judge.

Do not spread.

Civility is essential.

I value clear communication. Sign posts and voters are excellent tools.

I value clash. So listen to your opponent and tell me why they are wrong and your side is better.

Give weight to the most important arguments and tell me why they are the most important.

Write the reason for decision for me.

1- Nu Maneein--Parent judge; judged one tournament--Fayette. 
2- No experience as a debater; I've just judged the Fayette 
3- Convincing/persuasive arguments. 

Experience/Background: I debated in Varsity LD for four years (2012-2016) at Starr's Mill High School on the local GA circuit. In high school, I was a pretty traditional debater in that I wrote relatively standard cases (no CPs, theory shells, DisAds, Ks etc), but I am receptive to policy-esque cases if they are explained well. Please note, I've judged a limited amount of rounds in the past year. However, I still have a good understanding of LD debate and my preferences below still apply. Bolded text is TLDR

General Preferences/Notes:

-Please add me on the email chain: anoorali1503@gmail.com

-Speaks: If you want good speaker points, just be clear and sound engaged. I would also love it if you would slow down for taglines and card citations, especially if you spread.

-Disclosure/RFD: I will try my best to give you guys a decision at the end of the round, but if I'm not able to disclose immediately after the round for some reason, don't hesitate to come and find me.

Argument Preferences:

-Cross-Ex: I'm cool with clarification questions during cross-ex, but you should use it to weaken your opponent's arguments. Also, please let your opponent answer your questions before prematurely cutting them off.I don't flow CX because nothing counts in my book unless it is brought up in the following speeches.

-Framework: Even if you have a theory or policy-esque case that doesn't require framework, I would prefer you use a value and a value criterion. LD is (traditionally) a value and framework debate so I need to know how I can evaluate the round. I believe that framework needs a clear link with contentions. I also find it hard to vote on framework without any arguments supporting it.

-Offense vs Defense: Typically, I will vote for the debater who has the most amount of offense on my flow.

-Framework vs Contentions: I typically weigh contentions over framework when the two conflict just because I believe framework is useless without any contentions to support it.

-Impacts: I'm not going to weigh your impacts for you. You need to tell me why your evidence matters and why it's important.

-Clash: Attack your opponent's case!! It makes it significantly easier for me as the judge to decide the round if one debater doesn't attack their opponent's case. In the absence of clash, I will generally default to NEG (status quo) since the AFF is typically advocating for a new plan/idea.

-Theory:I'm okay with you running Kritiks, CPs, Disads, etc.However, I'm not well versed with the structure of theory, so it's imperative that you explain these arguments very well. If I don't understand your argument, it is going to be hard for me to vote for it.

-Voters: It's really important to me to know how you won the round. You should tell me how to weigh the round and why your opponent can't win and give me voters(ideally in your last speech.)

-Roadmaps/Signposting: Please make sure to tell me the order of your speeches and try to stay in that order. If you jump from case to case and don't give me a roadmap, I'm likely going to miss of your arguments and points which could cost you the round.

-Evidence: If you have an important piece of empirical evidence that is a case study or meta-analysis, make sure you give the year the study was done or published. It will be very difficult for me to weigh any empirical evidence without a time frame.Depending on the topic, I don't think you always need to have empirical evidence to win an LD round, just so long as you can adequately disprove your opponent's case and tell me why your case is relevant in the context of the round.

Things that annoy me:

-Stealing prep time. I'll let you know when time is up and I expect you to prepare to give your speech.

-Debaters who refuse to give their opponents their case. If you refuse to do this, I'm assuming you are making up evidence or your sources aren't legitimate. There should be no reason why your opponent can't see your case and evidence.

-Rude debaters. If you're blatantly rude to your opponents and consistently talk down to them, you probably don't want me as your judge.

I tried to include everything I could think of. Please don't hesitate to email me at anoorali1503@gmail.com if you have any more questions! Good luck!

I do not favor a particular style. I prefer students to make their case and prove it clearly and strongly. If you stumble and fracture your speech, that will hurt your case. Be professional, not rude. Be strong, not obnoxious.

I make sure that I am well read on the subject matter, but I DO NOT evoke my personal opinion in any manner.

I am judging the round, I am not a referee.  Good Luck!

I try to judge the debate the best I can given the information the debate teams provide me in the round.

In LD if you want me to vote on Value or criterion I need to know why this is and what effect this has on the round.

If I am to look at case please clearly identify your impacts and maybe compare them to your opponents. It doesn't have to be christmas for sweet gifts like that.

Educational Background:

Georgia State University (2004-2007) - English Major in Literary Studies; Speech Minor

Augusta University (2010-2011) - Masters in Arts in Teaching

Georgia State University (2015-2016) - Postbaccalaureate work in Philosophy

Revelant Career Experience:

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2011-2015) Grovetown High School

LD Debate Coach (2015-2018) Marist School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2018-2022) Northview High School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2022-present) Lassiter High School

Public Forum

Argue well. Don’t be rude. I’ll flow your debate, so make the arguments you need to make.

Policy

I haven't judged a lot of policy debates. I'm more comfortable with a little slower speed since I don't hear a lot of debates on the topic. I'm ok with most any time of argumentation, but I'm less likely to vote on theory arguments than K or Case arguments. Add me to your email chains.

Lincoln Douglas

I appreciate well warranted and strong arguments. Keep those fallacies out of my rounds.

If the negative fails to give me a warranted reason to weigh her value/value criterion above the one offered by the affirmative in the first negative speech, I will adopt the affirmative's FW. Likewise, if the negative offers a warranted reason that goes unaddressed in the AR1, I will adopt the negative FW.

I appreciate when debaters provide voters during the final speeches.

Debaters would probably describe me as leaning "traditional", but I am working to be more comfortable with progressive arguments. However, I'll vote, and have voted, on many types of arguments (Plans, Counterplans, Ks, Aff Ks, and theory if there is legitimate abuse). However, the more progressive the argument and the further away from the topic, the more in depth and slower your explanation needs to be. Don't make any assumptions about what I'm supposed to know.

Debates that don't do any weighing are hard to judge. Be clear about what you think should be on my ballot if you're winning the round.

Speed

If you feel it absolutely necessary to spread, I will do my best to keep up with the caveat that you are responsible for what I miss. I appreciate folks that value delivery. Take that as you will. If you're going to go fast, you can email me your case.

Disclosure

I try to disclose and answer questions if at all possible.

Cross Examination/Crossfire

I'm not a fan of "gotcha" debate. The goal in crossfire shouldn't get your opponent to agree to some tricky idea and then make that the reason that you are winning debates. Crossfire isn't binding. Debaters have the right to clean-up a misstatement made in crossfire/cross ex in their speeches.

Virtual Debate

The expectation is that your cameras remain on for the entirety of the time you are speaking in the debate round. My camera will be on as well. Please add me to the chain.

Axioms

“That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” — Christopher Hitchens

”There are three ways to ultimate success: The first way is to be kind. The second way is to be kind. The third way to be kind.” — Mr. Rogers

Contact: jonwaters7@gmail.com

Judge Philosophy

Name: Lisa Willoughby

Current Affiliation: Midtown High School formerly Henry W. Grady High School

Conflicts: AUDL teams

Debate Experience: 1 year debating High School 1978-79, Coaching High School 1984-present

How many rounds have you judged in 2012-13: 50, 2013-2014: 45, 2015-2016: 25, 2016-17 15, 2017-2018: 30, 2018-19: 30, 2019-20:10, 2020-21: 40, 2021-2022: 35, 2022-2023:6

send evidence e-mail chain to quaintt@aol.com

I still view my self as a policy maker unless the debaters specify a different role for my ballot. I love impact comparison between disadvantages and advantages, what Rich Edwards used to call Desirability. I don’t mind the politics disad, but I am open to Kritiks of Politics.

I like Counterplans, especially case specific counterplans. I certainly think that some counterplans are arguably illegitimate; for example, I think that some international counterplans are utopian, and arguably claim advantages beyond the reciprocal scope of the affirmative, and are, therefore, unfair. I think that negatives should offer a solvency advocate for all aspects of their counterplan, and that multi-plank cps are problematic. I think that there are several reasons why consultation counterplans, and the States CP could be unfair. I will not vote unilaterally on any of these theoretical objections; the debaters need to demonstrate for me why a particular counterplan would be unfair.

I have a minor in Philosophy, and love good Kritik debate. Sadly, I have seen a lot of bad Kritik debate. I think that K debaters need to have a strong understanding of the K authors that they embrace. I really want to understand the alternative or the role of my ballot. I have no problem with a K Aff, but am certainly willing to vote on Framework/T against a case that does not have at least a clear advocacy statement that I can understand. I am persuadable on "AFF must be USFG."

I like Topicality, Theory and Framework arguments when they are merited. I want to see fair division of ground or discourse that allows both teams a chance to prepare and be ready to engage the arguments.

I prefer substance to theory; go for the theoretical objections when the abuse is real.

As for style, I love good line-by-line debate. I adore evidence comparison, and argument comparison. I am fairly comfortable with speed, but I like clarity. I have discovered that as I get older, I am very comfortable asking the students to "clear." I enjoy humor; I prefer entertaining cross-examinations to belligerent CX. Warrant your claims with evidence or reasoning.

Ultimately, I demand civility: any rhetoric, language, performance or interactions that demean, dehumanize or trivialize fellow debaters, their arguments or judges would be problematic, and I believe, a voting issue.

An occasional interruption of a partner’s speech or deferring to a more expert partner to answer a CX question is not a problem in my view. Generally only one debater at a time should be speaking. Interruptions of partner speeches or CX that makes one partner merely a ventriloquist for the other are extremely problematic.

Clipping cards is cheating. Quoting authors or evidence out of context, or distorting the original meaning of a text or narrative is both intellectually bankrupt and unfair.

There is no such thing as one ideal form or type of debate. I love the clash of ideas and argumentation. That said, I prefer discourse that is educational, and substantive. I want to walk away from a round, as I often do, feeling reassured that the policy makers, educators, and citizens of the future will seek to do a reasonable and ethical job of running the world.

For Lincoln Douglas debates:

I am "old school" and feel most comfortable in a Value/Criterion Framework, but it is your debate to frame. Because I judge policy frequently, I am comfortable with speed but generally find it is needless. Clarity is paramount. Because of the limited time, I find that I typically err AFF on theoretical objections much more than I would in a policy round.

I believe that any argument that an AFF wants to weigh in the 2AR needs to be in the 1AR. I will vote against new 2AR arguments.

I believe that NEG has an obligation to clash with the AFF. For this reason, a counterplan would only be justified in a round when the AFF argues for a plan; otherwise a counterplan is an argument for the AFF. The NEG must force a decision, and for that reason, I am not fond of what used to be called a 'balance neg.'

I am an old school traditionalist but appreciate and have adapted to the evolution of modern debate.  

A strong argument unchallenged pays big dividends. A strong argument, weakly challenged, pays dividends as does a weak yet unchallenged argument. 

The presentation of the argument is nearly as important as the quality of the argument. a well developed argument is understandable. I prefer debate to be intelligent, articulate, and persuasive and not a speed-talking amass of statistical evidence. I have to be able to comprehend and flow the internal logic of your arguments. If you are clear, enunciate well, with good diction and voice inflection it helps me understand the key parts of what you are saying. 

Evidence is important, but spend time talking about the implications of evidence and making analytical comparisons between arguments. Description of arguments through analogy, examples, testimony, or hypothetical situations is a more persuasive style of debate than just presenting statistics. Commissions of logic fallicies, especially those challenged by the opposition carry weight.

Debaters should take the time to create good cross-examinations. Use them to reveal the fallacies of your opponents' arguments and how their claims appear to run counter to probable impacts or how their silence or ambiguities are cause to vote against their conditional claims.  Concluding arguments demonstrate an understanding of what was most important in the debate to that point.

Everyone in the debate should be courteous through-out the debate. Winning arguments are quality arguments, not necessarily plentiful ones.

Show that you are having fun while making clear how your arguments matter and why you should win!  

CAREER EXPERIENCE

Extensive instructional  experience in the military and as a civilian-as adjunct faculty at Columbus State University and Georgia State University as a professor of Political Science.  A former full time SROTC instructor at the University of Tennessee at Martin. Five years service as Senior Army Instructor at Centennial High School, Roswell GA, Hephzibah HS, Augusta, GA and Monarch HS Coconut Creek, FL.   Served as a US Army officer 1983-2006 retiring as a lieutenant colonel with two Iraq combat deployments.

EDUCATION

University of Louisville (01/01/1997 - 1 May 2007 Graduate) Louisville, Kentucky Degree: MA - Major: Political Science

United States Military Academy (07/02/1979 - 05/25/1983) West Point, New York Degree: BS - Major: BS  International Affairs

Training - Near East and North Africa Regional Seminar (05/26/1995) US State Department Foreign Service Institute intensive seminar to prepare government employees for foreign service in the Middle East.

RELEVANT DEBATE & DRAMA EXPERIENCE

Baldwin City HS, KS  1975-1979 Debate Team.  1978 Kansas State Debate Champion. 1979  4th Place Kansas State Debate Championship

Forensics:  Improvisational Duo, Extemporaneous Speaking

Drama:   Supporting actor roles 4 years HS theater productions-character actor, impersonations, voices