I debated public forum in high school, and I'm pretty traditional. Clash with your opponents, weigh arguments, don't spread, and clearly roadmap your speeches. Please be courteous to your fellow debaters.

debated in varsity pf for 3 years at roosevelt high school in sioux falls, sd with a little bit of experience in circuit debate. in my 3rd-ish year of judging debate. currently a junior at the university of south dakota studying political science. pronouns are she/her/hers.

----------

GENERAL STUFF FOR EVERYONE:

speak up and speak clearly, but don't yell.

anything racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, xenophobic, transphobic, etc. will make you lose automatically. no questions asked. debate tournaments must be a safe and inclusive space for everyone involved, and we need to keep it that way.

i will dock speaks for rude behavior (consistent interruptions during speeches/questioning/rfds, belittling opponents or judges, bashing on an opponent for genuinely not understanding something, etc.).

i can generally handle speed but 1) i'll stop flowing if i can't understand you and 2) you need to be mindful of what your opponents may prefer.

PLEASE USE TRIGGER WARNINGS PRIOR TO THE ROUND IF YOU ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT ANY SENSITIVE MATERIAL. i don't want anyone to feel vulnerable or threatened by any material that may have an adverse impact on them.

for debate, i'll disclose the winning team and try my best to give an RFD if time allows.

----------

***IMPORTANT - PLEASE DO NOT SKIM OR SKIP!***

i know circuit debaters enjoy using technical jargon, but i strongly dislike it when teams clearly use this sort of language to overwhelm their opponents and practically stomp all over them. this language isn't supposed to be used to take advantage of others, whether it's through confusing them or by making it seem like you know what you're talking about when it’s all just fluff.

that being said, i truly believe the round needs to be accessible to everyone in the room. you shouldn't have to use technical jargon every 5 words in a sentence to win the round. i care more about the quality of your args/ev and your ability to get me to understand and believe what you're saying rather than your ability to say "terminal defense" 20 times in a speech.

i'm not saying you can't use jargon at all, but what i am saying is that you should tone it down and focus more on delivering well-developed and coherent args at a baseline level of understanding. i may not be a true "lay" judge due to my debate experience, but i just don't have the time to learn resolutions anymore, so doing this will help me out a lot when it comes to understanding what both sides are arguing. i also want all debaters to have the chance to comprehend the round as a whole without potentially being thrown off by the constant use of such jargon - everyone should be able to learn in this setting!

if you can adapt to this, i'll be happy. if you have any questions (especially since i may not have been totally clear in this), that's cool too! but if you're the type of person who prefers to have a debate that is a complete mashup of jargon b/c that’s the only way you know how to win, i'm NOT the judge for you. if you're stuck with me anyway and get upset, i won't feel sorry nor will i waste any time arguing with you or your coach(es). this has been a fair warning to everyone. thanks!

----------

PF:

constructive: definitions are fine if absolutely necessary but keep them short. framework is really helpful to have b/c it provides a lens for evaluating the round. i prefer seeing 2-3 clear points of contention presented in a case (“contention 1 is...” or some iteration of that). CLEARLY STATE TAGLINES, WARRANTS, AND IMPACTS. a case w/o warrants and impacts is highly unlikely to get my vote.

rebuttal: put some sort of roadmap on top so i know where you're going. signpost clearly. personal preference = 1st rebuttal spends all 4 min on offense against the other case while 2nd rebuttal spends ~2 min on offense and ~2 min responding to 1st rebuttal's attacks. extend and cross-apply points when you can.

summary: again, provide some sort of roadmap. base this speech off of what has been said in the round thus far - no new args please. **clear and distinct voting issues** are really nice to have and make it easier for me to weigh the round on my flow. definitions don't count as voting issues.

final focus: basically just explain to me why you win the round with 2-3 voting issues. no new args or ev can be brought up. i will only weigh warrants and impacts that have been CLEARLY and CLEANLY extended throughout the round up until this speech. if it wasn't extended beforehand (i.e. brought up in rebuttal, dropped in summary, but brought up again in final focus), i won't weigh it.

ev: if you ask your opponents for ev after their speech or after crossfire, that's fine with me. i won't use your prep time while you're getting your ev unless it's taking an absurd amount of time. please refrain from calling for ev as a way to give yourself or your partner extra time to work on a speech. if i notice this, i'll dock your speaks.

NEW - how to effectively win my ballot: give me voting issues in summary/final focus so i know what to focus on for my decision. if you don't clearly state your voting issues (i.e., "our first voting issue is..."), i'm going to have to formulate my RFD around whatever i personally found interesting in the round, and i don't think that's in the best interest of any team. not having clear voting issues is an immense risk of losing my ballot.

other: do NOT try to run anything under the guise of theory, counterplans, kritiks, or anything similar. you will automatically lose if you do. i also stress quality over quantity. just because you read more ev doesn't mean that you win. i'd prefer to hear 1 good card from a reputable scholarly source rather than 10 mediocre cards from at-home blogs.

----------

EXTRA INFO:

if possible, i'll give an extra half speaker point (+0.5) to any debater who uses an effective (not half-assed) analogy in round that not only helps explain an arg better but is able to get a smile or laugh out of me. analogies can be a great way to understand a new or complicated concept, or they can be useful in simply portraying something in a different lens. i also think they help make the round more engaging, and i always appreciate debaters who strive to do that. we all get tired of going to rounds after a long day, especially towards the end of 2-3 day long tournaments. this is just a nice and simple way to help liven things up and bring energy back into the round!

i also know that i didn’t really touch on any other events in this b/c i wanted to keep this short and concise - if i’m your judge and we’re not in a pf round, i will happily answer your questions as best as i can, but please bear with me!

----------

if you have any questions that i didn't answer in this, please feel free to ask me!

tl;dr

flow judge, impact calc, speed ok but risky strategy, no blippy arguments, technicality ok but insufficient on its own

Judging Paradigm

I'm a flow judge who primarily votes on impact calculus. I can handle speed but if you speak too quickly for me to write something down, I won't consider it in my decision. I will not provide you benefit of the doubt in this situation; speed is a tactical decision on your part and you must embrace both the benefits and risks if you choose to use it. I will not consider new arguments or dropped arguments in the final speech. Don't try to lie about whether an argument was dropped; even if I end up voting for you, I will deduct a painful number of speaker points. A debate is only fair when both sides readily embrace the truth and consider the purest form of each others' arguments.

I will choose a winner by weighing arguments. I will defer to your impact calculus when you do it throughout your speeches and weigh arguments clearly. If you don't weigh arguments for me, I will decide the weights myself and you may not like what I value. There is only upside to clear impact calculus. I am receptive to arguments grounded in the real world and am not very persuaded by contentions that are super abstract or unrealistic. While I vote on impact calculus, I usually find extinction-level impacts to be a huge stretch and will likely not buy all the links required to get there. There’s a difference between impact mitigation and impact denial .

I am impressed by unique, well-crafted arguments or strongly-run stock contentions. Do not try to twist your opponents' arguments to fit whatever tag your briefs have answers to if they aren't the same thing; value your own intelligence (and the work your opponents have done) enough to come up with unique responses. Much of the value of debate comes from researching the topic, and teams that have clearly put in the work will be rewarded.

As a practical matter, you're unlikely to have spent enough time developing your contentions if you have a million points and subpoints. I would rather hear you develop a powerful three-contention case than try to overwhelm your opponents with a bunch of blippy arguments. If you want to run cases like that, policy debate is always an option. If your arguments are underdeveloped, it will be much harder to run effective impact calculus and reduces your odds of getting my ballot.

Unless the outcome is very clear, it will take me a minute to flow everything out and evaluate the impact calculus at the end of the round. I tend to be fully engaged during the round so the final decision takes a bit to figure out and write down. You can't improve without feedback and I will happily answer any questions you have about the round and my decision. If we're in a time crunch I probably won't offer you feedback immediately after the round but please come find me.

Technicality

I understand technical arguments and you should too. I want to hear you talk about solvency and topicality if it's relevant, but if you don't have a strong understanding of how these concepts apply to the arguments you're making, you're probably wasting your time. If your responses are only technical, you probably aren't engaging your opponents' contentions deeply enough to win on the flow.

I feel pretty meh about kritiks. I think the discourse has immense value in general but doing so in the debate bubble is likely preaching to the choir. I'm open to a K but am probably more interested in hearing you engage with the topic that was assigned. Unless you really impress me or tie your K to the topic in a meaningful way I will probably vote you down even though I support the discourse.

Timing

You get a few seconds to organize papers, flowpads, your laptop, and whatever before the speech but if I feel like you're biding your time I will start the timer on your speech. Roadmaps are off-time, but if you're just going say "I'll be hitting my opponents' points and then coming back to mine" don't bother; I understand the outline of a regular speech. If you call for evidence, I will not start prep time until your opponents provide you the requested materials; however, neither team should be prepping during this time. If you choose to continue prepping anyway, I will deduct that time from your prep even if it isn't your team's prep.

Behavior

I have little tolerance for rudeness but my bar for it is fairly high. Debate is a high-stress activity and the potential for misunderstanding is great, so if you're exceeding that bar I will be harsh with your speaker points. It is not hard to extend your opponents the respect they deserve for 45 minutes. Complain about them after the round in private like a normal person.