P.F. Paradigm

While I believe every good argument is backed by solid evidence, as a judge I'd prefer a well-thought-out, logical argument backed by strong examples and evidence over a case that is just straight cards. Below you'll find four important points about my judging (point d will not effect how I vote in the round).

a)I am more likely to vote for a team that spent time genuinely educating themselves on the topic in preparation for the tournament.

b)The team that communicates their knowledge of the topic the best will probably win over a team that is pretending to be experts on the topic.

c)A crafty argument is not the main thing I'm looking for, but it is icing on the cake.

d) Asking for evidence and completely stalling the round, while the other team is fumbling around for their evidence, is my pet peeve.

Background: I debated PF at Auburn High School. I have a BS in Economics from Auburn University and am working on my MS in Economics at Portland State University. This is my fifth year judging. I'm a flow judge. I judge the round based almost purely off of what is left on the flow after final focus. This means that I value clear voters and good line by line very highly.

Crossfire: I do not flow crossfire. Any points made in crossfire must be brought up in a speech for me to weigh it in the round. If debaters are rude during crossfire it will be reflected in their speaker points.

Evidence: If debaters cannot produce evidence in less than a minute, I assume that they do not have the card. I will ask for cards after the round if I am not clear on the intentions of the author or believe that the card was miscut.

I am a former PF debater and a current PF/LD coach. I have a degree in Communication Studies with a specialization in rhetoric, therefore, I put a lot of emphasis on logos, ethos, and pathos in a round. Eye contact, good body language, and a generally positive demeanor go a long way with me-- debate is fun and you should enjoy these experiences. I do not approve of spreading (especially just to seem competitive or because you think it's what you're supposed to do) because when debaters spread, they tend to lose sight of the persuasive nature of the debate as an activity and an exercise in professionalism. I am a flow judge so please be sure to extend arguments thoughtfully (e.g. don't tell me to extend an argument without any logic behind it). Signposting and off-time roadmaps are really helpful for me as a judge since I do refer to the flow quite a bit for judging purposes.

I debated PF and LD for one year in high school.

LD Paradigms:

I can handle a 7 on the scale of 1-10 in flowing. However, if you see me during a round and I'm not flowing you, it means you are going too fast for me. Don't be afraid to slow down and hit your best points the hardest.

That being said, I am familiar with maybe half of the terms in LD. If there is a term you use that you know many people don't know, explain it to me because I probably don't either. Be sure to link your value and value-criterion, and how they outweigh that of your opponents. And go over the biggest impacts your side may have in a round. I love to weigh impacts in a round.

Do not bully your opponent. I have seen this happen the most in LD and I don't know why, but you lose a lot of credibility if you attack your opponent rather than their points. Be concise, well-worded, and have intelligent arguments and make it a good round.

I am a second year Public Forum coach with the SpeakFirst team in Birmingham, Alabama.

In terms of speed, you can speak as fast as you'd like, but not so fast that I can't catch your contention taglines for my flow. I prefer well-organized constructives with sign posting and clear impacts. For weighing, I'd ideally like to be told how to weigh the round and not left to decide that for myself. I don't like getting into long framework battles, so if it comes to that it's better to concede to one framework or the other and show how you're winning on it.

I'm okay with off time roadmaps before rebuttal and summary as long as you have a reason for giving one, and I don't care if you sit or stand during crossfire as long as both sides do the same thing. I'll flow everything but crossfire. I'll only hold dropped arguments against you if they're extended by your opponent in summary.

I expect each side to keep their own time, but I'll be keeping it too with the exception of calling for cards - if you're calling for a card, please keep track and just tell me how much of your prep you used. Please don't vocally keep your opponent's time. Also, please don't talk/whisper to your partner during one of your opponent's speeches. Bottom line, be respectful and have fun!

Email: willhaynes11@gmail.com

Background: I debated for four years at Spain Park High School in Hoover, AL: national circuit LD my first two years and national circuit PF for the remainder. I recently graduated from Auburn University with a BS in Biomedical Sciences and minors in Spanish and Philosophy. I am currently a first year medical student at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. I spent 4 years coaching and judging PF for Auburn High School, mostly on the local Alabama circuit.

Lincoln-Douglass Paradigm

I typically judge PF, but as I stated above, do have experience debating circuit LD. Therefore, I'm pretty flexible when it comes to how you would like to debate. Traditional is probably your safest bet, but I'm not going to disregard your arguments because they are too progressive. Just recognize that since I am a PF coach, I may not evaluate all of your arguments in the same way as an LD circuit judge would.

Flow/Speed: I am a standard flow judge. I can tolerate a brisk pace, but please do not spread.

Theory: I'm good with anything you would like to run. Competing interps>reasonability

K's: I don't particularly like K's. I'm most sympathetic to K's that are using the round to make structural change within the debate community.

Framework: Feel free to run any fun/interesting/non-standard criterions as long as you provide solid justifications.

Public Forum Paradigm

Flow/Speed: I am a typical flow judge. In rebuttals and summaries, please make it clear what argument you're responding to. All turns must be addressed in the following speech, so if you are the second speaker, and your opponent makes a case turn in their rebuttal, you must address it in your rebuttal or else it is dropped. Frontlining can be done in either the rebuttal or summary. I can flow 8/10 on speed. Do not spread. The summary and final focus must be consistent.

Evidence: I will call for cards at the end of the round if I am unclear on the intentions of the author or I have reason to believe it is mis-cut. I will not call for evidence due to washes or lack of weighing.

Crossfire: I do not flow new arguments in crossfire, nor does it have any effect in how I judge the round unless someone is rude, in which case I will deduct speaker points.

Framework: I default to CBA unless another empirically justified framework is offered at the top of the constructive. I enjoy a good framework debate, so do not hesitate to propose a deontological value.

Offense: Under CBA, I only weigh quantifiable and empirically justified impacts as offense. If you do not quantify, there is no objective way for me to compare impacts at the end of the debate.

Fiat: If the resolution is framed in terms of a moral obligation (should, ought ect.), then I judge the debate based off the costs/benefits of the resolution actually taking effect. Therefore, I do not evaluate feasibility claims that have to do with the inabilities of laws or policies to pass through Congress or any other governmental actor unless I am provided with compelling analytical justifications for doing so.

Theory: I believe theory is the best way to correct abuse in a debate round. It is much easier for me to flow theory if it is run in the standard format (A: Interpretation, B: Violation, C:Standards, D:Voters), but I am fine with paragraph theory as long as it is clear and well justified.

Kritiks: I very rarely vote for them, mainly just because I don't believe PF is the most conducive for such arguments so just keep that in mind before you take that risk.

Presumption: In the event that the round ends up with a wash, I will default to the first speaking team.

I debated varsity PF for Auburn for two years. I’m currently a senior at Auburn University studying Industrial Design.

I prefer clear, cogent, and coherent argument. If a point is valid, give logical and empirical argument to support it. Don’t spread.

I value the framework and the flow, so if you bring up a point in crossfire (which I don’t flow) bring it up again in a speech. Be nice.

2 year LD debater and 2 year PF debater for Vestavia Hills High school.

I prefer to see elaborate arguments rather than a bunch of small scattered points. It is important to the weigh impacts in order for me to pick the better argument. So if you spread, make sure you are clear. I will only judge based off of what I can understand. 

I'm what my students call "flay." Be nice, be logical, speak clearly. I don’t like excessive terminology.

***No prior debate experience (lay judge), however, been judging Individual Events and occasionally Public Forum for the past 4 years

- state your framework (if you have one) at the beginning of your debate

- when you state your contentions, make sure you state them clearly

- off-time roadmaps are helpful

- prefer no spreading, but keep in mind I can't flow towards you if I can't understand/hear you

- prefer you keep your own times

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 debated PF for 3 years in high school.  I can flow a speaking speed of about 7 or 8/10, but please don't spread.  PF is meant for the public to be able to understand, so I would much rather you speak at a normal pace and appeal to me with not only facts and statistics, but also logic.  I prefer that you stand during your speeches and crossfire, and please be respectful and courteous to your opponents.  Don't spend a ton of time arguing over one little point of your case- think about how important it is in relation to the whole debate.  Try to focus more on the big picture.  Don't bring up new evidence during summary or final focus- I won't flow it.  And please use the final focus the way it is meant to be used- it is a very important part of the debate.  When refuting, go line-by-line and don't jump around if you want to ensure that I won't be confused. 

University of South Alabama '22 (Doctorate of Audiology)

Auburn University '18 (B.S. in Communication Disorders)

Mars Hill Bible School '16

Email: Lgy291@gmail.com

A little about me: I debated PF for 3 years during high school. I earned an Academic All-American, and I also went to Nationals my senior year in World Schools Debate. I absolutely love debate, and I have judged at least one tournament a year since I graduated.

Preferences: I'm not usually picky in a debate round, but I do pay more attention to certain details. First thing you should know is that I don't flow during crossfire; therefore, make sure you bring up any big points you make during crossfire up in a speech so that it is on my flow. Secondly, I heavily weigh evidence during my rounds. As a past PF debater, I know how quickly you can win or lose a round if you or your opponent doesn't have evidence to backup the claims made. It is important to look at date and source when comparing evidence in order to prove why yours is better. Third, I can handle speed, but DO NOT spread. Lastly, be confident but not too confident to were you come off as rude or arrogant. Doing such could decrease the amount of speaker points you receive. I know that rounds can sometimes get heated, but a great debater knows how to stay calm/ focused and get their point across without being rude.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to email me!