I strongly believe in narrowing the debate in the summary speeches. I really want you to determine where you are winning the debate and explain that firmly to me. In short: I want you to go for something. I really like big impacts, but its's important to me that you flush out your impacts with strong internal links. Don't just tell me A leads to C without giving me the process of how you got there. Also don't assume i know every minute detail in your case. Explain and extend and make sure that you EMPHASIZE what you really want me to hear. Slow down and be clear. Give me voters (in summary and final focus). 

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. I work very hard to flow the debate in as much detail as possible. However, if I can't understand you I can't flow you. 

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 current Yale University student, and four year Public Forum debater on the national circuit at Carrollton High School. I have extensive experience both participating and judging in Public Forum, as well as other events. I will flow the round, so please sign post. This will greatly benefit me in my ability to follow your arguments, and ensure that I catch everything. If you are going to provide an observation or framework, do not simply tell me to weigh in that manner, explain why I should. Extensions through all speeches are a must if you are going to pick up my ballot. Do not turn a crossfire into a speech. I do not flow crossfire, but it is still a valuable time for the debater to find holes in their opponent's cases. Ensure that you are telling me why you are winning the round, simply reading a card does nothing for the judge, nor for the educational purposes of the round.

Speed becomes an issue when you are not clearly articulating your arguments. Clarity in round is key, and I would prefer to hear a single clear and well explained response over several poorly articulated ones. If I can't understand you, it will not go on the flow. When making my final decision, I take into account; first if an argument was extended throughout the round, then I examine the responses to each argument.

It is most important to consider that debate is intended to be an educational experience. With that being said, I will not tolerate any facetious or degrading remarks in round, as they are counter intuitive to the purpose of the event. As a result, such behavior will be reflected in the speaker points given.

I will expect you to ask questions prior to the round about anything that seems unclear in this paradigm.

I believe that public forum was designed to have a "john or sally doe" off the street come in and be a judge.  That means that speaking clearly is absolutely essential.  If I cannot understand you, I cannot weigh what you say.  I also believe that clarity is important.  Finally, I am a firm believer in decorum, that is, showing respect to your opponent.  In this age of political polarization and uncompromising politics, I believe listening to your opponent and showing a willingness to give credence to your opponents arguments is one of the best lessons of public forum debate.

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.

PF:

-Do not spread. On a scale of 1-10 for speed I prefer somewhere around 6-7. I would prefer you to slow down or pause a tad for taglines for my flow. Also if you list 4-5 short points or stats in quick succession, I probably will miss one or two in the middle if you dont slow down.

-Arguments you go for should appear in all speeches. If your offense was not brought up in summary, I will ignore it in FF.

-I do not think cross is binding. It needs to come up in the speech. I do not flow cross, and as a flow judge that makes decisions based on my flow, it won't have much bearing on the round.

-At the least I think 2nd rebuttal needs to address all offense in round. Bonus points for collapsing case and completely frontlining the argument you do go for.

-Please time yourselves. My phone is constantly on low battery, so I'd rather not use it. If you want to keep up with your opponents' prep too to keep them honest then go ahead.

-In terms of some of the more progressive things- I haven't actually heard theory in a PF round but I hear it's a thing now. If your opponent is being abusive about something then sure, let me know, either in a formal shell or informal. Don't run theory just to run it though. Obviously, counterplans and plans are not allowed in PF so just don't.

-pet peeves:

1) Bad or misleading evidence. Unfortunately this is what I am seeing PF become. Paraphrasing has gotten out of control. Your "paraphrased" card better be accurate. If one piece of evidence gets called out for being miscut or misleading, then it will make me call in to question all of your evidence. If you are a debater that runs sketchy and loose evidence, I would pref me very high or strike me.

2) Evidence clash that goes nowhere. If pro has a card that says turtles can breathe through their butt and con has a card saying they cannot and that's all that happens, then I don't know who is right. In the instance of direct evidence clash (or even analytical argumentation clash) tell me why to prioritize your evidence over theirs or your line of thinking over theirs. Otherwise, I will consider the whole thing a wash and find something else to vote on.

3) Not condensing the round when it should be condensed. Most of the time it is not wise to go for every single argument on the flow. Sometimes you need to pick your battles and kick out of others, or risk undercovering everything.

LD:
So first, I primarily judge PF. This means my exposure to certain argument types is limited. I LOVE actually debating the resolution. Huge fan. I'm cool with DAs and CPs. Theory only if your opponent is being overly abusive (so no friv). If you are a K or tricks debater good luck. I know about the progressive things but since I primarily judge PF, my ability to evaluate it is very limited from experience. If you want to go for a K or something, I won't instantly drop you and I will try my best to flow and evaluate it in the round. But you will probably need to tweak it a little, slow down, and explain more how it is winning and why I should vote for it. I come from a traditional circuit, so the more progressive the round gets, the less capable I am of making a qualified decision.

I do not want you to flash your case to me. I want to flow it. If you read to point that it is unflowable then it is your loss. If I don't flow it, I cannot evaluate it and thus, cannot vote on it. Spreading in my opinion is noneducational and antithetical to skills you should be learning from this activity. Sorry, in the real world and your future career, spreading is not an acceptable practice to convince someone and get your point across.

Both:
Please signpost/roadmap- I hate when it is unclear where you are and I get bounced around the flow. Have fun and don't be overly aggressive.

I have experience debating Public Forum, and I've judged primarily PF and LD for the past two years.

In terms of speed, I have no issue with spreading so long as you enunciate your words. I can't judge what's incomprehensible.

During crossfire, the education of the round is severely limited if it is just used by a side to list off their contention without allowing for questions. Keep it to question and answer. There is a difference between fully explaining what was asked and running the clock down.

Dr. Carrie Crenshaw

Director, SpeakFirst

Birmingham, AL

24 Years of Debate Experience at Middle School, High School and Collegiate Debate Level

Philosophy:
I love debate. My high school coach Patti Edwards first gave me the gift of debate in 1979. I am happy to be here to listen to your arguments and will carefully consider all you have to say. I appreciate your hard work and courage in speaking out and learning to argue well and think critically.

I have always considered myself an argument critic. I will vote for the team who makes the best arguments backed by high quality reasoning and evidence. I expect you to be tight in the line by line meeting your burden of rejoinder while also weighing the arguments, issues and evidence in a solid explanation of why you win the debate as a whole.

Do
-Speak clearly and persuasively. I don't mind a rapid rate of speaking but I have found that very few are actually able to speak rapidly and clearly at the same time.
-Use high quality evidence and make clear arguments about why your evidence is good.
-Be strategic and smart.
-Be kind.

Don't
-Be obnoxious or rude. I expect everyone to be treated with respect.
-Expect me to read volumes of evidence after the debate is over. If a card is highly contested, I may occasionally ask to see it but, in general, I expect you to clearly read and refer to your evidence in your speeches.
-Speak fast if you can't do it clearly.

History: Debated for 4 years on the national circuit and a little bit on the local circuit. Went to Semis at GFCA State 2018, Broke at NSDA Nationals 2018, and broke at NFL Nationals 2019, along with breaking at multiple national tournaments

UPDATE 11/13/20* It would be great if you can send me both of your cases before the round, it would be even better if you can also send me every card you use in the round, doing this makes my job easier and I will give you higher speaks.

Evaluation: I vote off of Final Focus, however anything not brought up in Summary should not be reintroduced in Final Focus (aka extending through ink) as I will not evaluate the argument, because you do not consider it important enough to be weighed in the second half of the round. I expect Road Maps before every speech besides the constructive, that way I know where you are going throughout the speech, and I can clearly recognize your route to my ballot. If you do not stick to your Road Map I will dock your speaks. Also, Sign Posting when giving your speeches will help me a lot, and I will probably be able to evaluate as much as possible as you will be giving me organized arguments. Make sure you extend your Framework throughout the round if you want me to evaluate it, also make sure to explain why your framework is more important than the opposition if there is a conflict in that area. If you don't provide a frame work I default to a Cost Benefit Analysis I would also love for you to explain the analysis and warrants behind the evidence that you bring up in the round, I do not really care what the author has to say directly, rather I care about how the card impacts the round. I am also a big fan of analysis from YOU as this event is focused around the education of argumentation. As for specific speeches I expect the 1st Rebuttal to have a great deal of offense as you should not have to play defense because the 2nd speaking team has not given their rebuttal yet. For the 2nd Rebuttal I expect it to have a good amount of Front lining as you should be responding to the 1st speaking teams rebuttal. I do not mind the 1st Summary having a little bit of defense as it is the only chance to respond to the 2nd rebuttal, but I do expect you to be winning your links and extending important offense throughout the majority of the speech. 2nd Summary should be solely focused on winning your links and extending offense, as well as explaining to me why you are winning the round. For Final Focus your job is to win the round by extending offense, and winning/weighing your impacts. Side Notes: I am not super familiar with theory, but I will try to evaluate it the best way I can. TECH OVER TRUTH

Preferences: Cross Examination: Make sure to be productive in cross examination, you should be asking questions about areas you are confused about, you are not trying to gain a specific tactical advantage, that is why it is called a cross examination and not its own respective speech. I also do not flow cross examination so if you have something important to say you need to bring it up in your speech Speed: I can handle a good bit of speed, however make sure to emphasize the most important substance, that way I can make as few mistakes as possible. Attitude: I am not one to vote you down for being too aggressive, but just note that the majority of judges do not like when you act in a derogatory manner, and it is not that appealing. I understand you can get frustrated but just try to chill out. Speaks: I rarely give a 30, but if you get above a 28.5 it means that I view you as an above average debater so congrats.

I debated for 3 years at Auburn High School in Public Forum. I graduated in 2018.

I am a flow judge. No spreading. Teams may frontline in summary and rebuttal. If something is not in your summary, it will not be weighed in final focus.

I do not weigh any arguments made in crossfire, but speaker points can be deducted if a team is unprofessional.

I weigh impacts under a cost/benefit analysis unless another framework is given and I am convinced to weigh under said framework. Your voters must be quantifiable and directly weighed against your opponent's in final focus in order for me to vote fairly.

The main things I focus on for speaker points are:

Thorough understanding of evidence and arguments (no card dumping)

Clear, calm presence in speeches and crossfire

Organization and signposting down the flow

I debated public forum for four years at Carrollton High School and currently debate with the Phi Kappa Literary Society at UGA. I prefer rounds that are more argumentation and rhetoric with cards being used to supplement and defend the points made rather than the round devolving into a card battle. I won't weigh a round based off of a single card. I expect primarily scholarly articles to be used throughout the round. Debaters should be respectful of each other and the subject of the debate. The soul of the debate should be sound analysis of the evidence that debaters provide, rather than listing as many authors as you can in a single breath. If you don't demonstrate an understanding of the topic it does not matter to me how many sources you throw out. The impacts of each argument should also be at the forefront of the clash within the debate. I really prefer if the teams give at least a moderate weighing mechanism in order to make the round require as little arbitration by the judge as possible.

I competed in public forum at Carrollton High School for four years and competed at various national tournaments. I'm currently a student at the University of Georgia and a member of the Phi Kappa Literary Society, so I'm still involved in debate as a college student.

As far as judging goes, I can understand when you speak fast, but I want emphasis on the most important parts of your speech. Please don't spread. I want voters crystallized during summary and continued on through the final focus. Please don't try to bring up arguments in summary or FF that you didn't extend through the rebuttal. I don't care about sitting or standing so long as all participants agree and are doing the same thing.

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. Also, I appreciate a framework and/or weighing mechanism to make my job easier, but it is by no means required.

If you say anything that is blatantly racist, sexist, or otherwise bigoted, please do not expect to win the round, and anticipate low speaker points. This isn't me having a political bias, it's just a non-negotiable of respectful debate. I understand that certain resolutions may force you to take a position that better or worse for social justice issues, and I will not penalize you for that, but do be careful in how you are speaking or characterizing the issues of certain groups. Always be respectful to your opponents. I appreciate clash and understand how we can all get a little heated in cross, but never forget that the people across from you are human beings, that you are just a high school student, and that when you graduate, it's very possible that you will end up going to school with those individuals. (I'm currently in a debate society with people I debated against in high school. It pays in the long run to be nice, or at least respectful to each other.)

If you mention or make reference to the television series Twin Peaks, showing that you've read my paradigm, you will earn brownie points, but it won't get you any higher speaker points and it certainly won't win you the round.

Good luck, and don't be surprised if I have a somewhat lengthier RFD, especially if I'm judging a novice round. I just want you all to get better.

Ld paradigm- 

email: avery.eddy54@gmail.com add me to the email chain yo

Style: I debate LD at Houston County and have qualified for both state and nationals in the activity. I'm comfortable with any style of debate you want to run. On one hand- I do understand the necessity to uphold the "integrity" of the activity through holding it to its roots in traditional debate. On the other- I am a progressive debater by coaching and personally enjoy a good progressive round. I have debated on both the national and lay circuits.

Kritik: I love k's- but I expect them to be run well (except anthro bc duh I'm human anf idc ab animals lol) . I wil ask for your lit at the end of the round if it sounds "fishy" or like you don't know what you're talking about. The advantage of the K is the engagement of dominating ideas and structures. It is not a way to cheat the round. 

Theory: I will vote on theory- once again, if run well

RVI's are weird but I buy them occasionally. Be cautious.

Plans and CPs: plans and counterplans need a clear advocacy.  Ambiguity is bad but if the other team doesn't say that I'll still vote for you. Moral of the story- ask the status of the cp if it seems nebulous and run a t shell OR if you are the one with the nebulous plan/cp... don't do that. I'll be v sad. 

Standing: No standing prefs. Tbh I sit for speeches if the judge will let me so I really couldn't care less where or if you stand, sit, lay etc as long as you aren't standing, sitting, or laying on my laptop or flow. 

Tech>truth but I will buy reasonability in most cases where it is reasonable as long as you or the other team brings it up

speed: I spread. That can either hurt or help you b/c I know how it should sound. Slow down for tags and authors. Always ask the other team if they can handle speed, if they say no, slow down. I will say clead exactly 3 times, after that I doc speaker points and stop flowing. If you spread- you should flash. If you email chain, add me. If you share a speech doc make sure you state what is not read and what is- anything else is cheating plain and simple. 

Speaker points: Because female and minority debaters have been emprically proven to lose points at for aggressive debate- I will add speaker points for your aggression. Don't attack each other. Don't be rude. Attack your arguments. Scream, yell, Alex Jones your way through it. Show me the side of your speaking that prejudice takes away from you.  Reclaim your aggression in this round. 

About Me: I debated in Varsity LD for three years of my high school career, and I love this activity more than anything else I did during those three years. I was also the captain of the Houston County High School LD Debate Team. However, I also competed in novice PF for half of my novice year, and even won a tournament in it. I love philosophy and read it regularly. My top three are: Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and John Rawls. My favorite politician of all history is Bobby Kennedy. I am liberal, but that just means that if you convince me that a conservative policy is even slightly desirable, I will see it as a major accomplishment. I am also part of the LGBT+ community, and take discrimination very seriously. I have no problem voting a debater down for ethical reasons if they say something blatantly discriminatory.

Debate Preferences: I am okay with spreading, but either use voice inflection or slow down while stating contention titles and sources. I judge rounds tabula-rasa style, so if your opponent doesn't counter your claims, as long as your claims aren't obviously false through observation/logic, then your claims still stand. If an argument is not made, it does not exist. PLEASE GIVE VOTERS. I like progressive-style debate (Frameworks, Theory, Kritiks, etc.), but if you are doing PF, plans are prohibited. You are not required to debate in this style, and I would much rather hear a good traditional-style debate than a poor progressive-style debate. Do not assume, if you go the philosophical route, that I know all philosophies, but it is safe to assume that I know how to evaluate standardized, premise-conclusion style arguments. Claim-data-warrant-impact always applies, unless you run that data is meaningless and provide reasoning for that claim. If you provide framework and your opponent turns your case to work against your own framework, you lose. If your opponent supplies framework and you successfully argue that your case better fulfills their framework, you win. Impacts will always be the main RFD unless you successfully run a philosophy stating that impacts are bs. One large impact is better than a few negligible impacts. Snowball effects are still effects as long as you argue why the effect is probable. Education will always be assumed as the main purpose of debate unless otherwise stated. Theory should be in the proper format of A: Interpretation, B: Violation, C: Standard, and D: Voter. Finally, CITATIONS ARE REQUIRED. IF YOU DO NOT PROVIDE CITATIONS, YOU ARE BREAKING THE RULES AND I CANNOT VOTE FOR YOU. I RESERVE EVERY RIGHT TO READ YOUR CASE AFTER THE ROUND IS OVER.

Speaker Points: I do not care if you look at me or not while you speak, but I will count off speaker points if it's obvious that you haven't practiced debating with your case. Three things are very important to me when calculating speaker points. The first is whether you act like you want to be there or not. The second is whether you keep going even if you feel like your losing. The third is whether you are respectful to everyone involved. I do not like quitters, I do not like apathy, and I do not like disrespect. Your attitude towards debate has an effect on other debaters and judges. You should convince them that debate is valuable.

Prep Time: Prep is for prep, not for extra cross. You may ask to read your opponents case during YOUR prep. If you ask for a specific part of the case, then the prep will not start until your opponent finds that part. If you take more than 5 minutes looking for a specific piece of your case asked for by your opponent, I am going to ask you to stop, and that specific piece will not be weighed in round.

LD-Specific: Everything previously stated about framework apllies to values. I love a good value debate as long as it's run well. If you run progressive-style cases, make sure you ACTUALLY know how to run them. Philosophers are not values. You must justify your value and value criterion. Your value criterion should be a more specific idea within your value, and it should serve as the link between your value and your contentions. If your value and value criterion are completely unrelated, I will not vote for you. Value turns are always good, when you run them well. Values and value criterions are not technically required, but some sort of framework always makes a case stronger. Kritiks do not require values, and are sometimes better without them. Plans and CPs require an actor and an impacted party, and agency is very important.

4 years of LD experience

I’m up for pretty progressive args.

Spreading is fine with (will call out for in round if needed)

Time yourselves- I'll keep a timer but I'm not paying much attention to it

Don't flow cross ex- anything said in cx should be brought up in rebuttal

Framework debate is super important!

I've been the Speech & Debate Coach at Starr's Mill H.S since 2018. My team only competes in Public Forum and Speech events, so that is where I have the most experience coaching and subsequently judging.

PF:

1. Make good, consistent arguments with clearly stated and explained evidence and you won't have a problem winning the round.
2. For high speaker points, I look for good sportsmanship, confidence, politeness, clear rhetoric, consistent signposting, and timeliness.
3. Do not spread. Do not ask if I or your competitors want your case as a workaround.
4. Signpost as much as possible (i.e. please reference the argument you are responding to as you go down the flow).
5. I am not a judge for off-the-wall stuff (topicality, kritiks, etc.).
6. Actually summarize in your summaries! No new arguments in final focus. Create the narrative and convince me to vote for you.
7. I do not flow cross, but I have decided rounds on crucial admissions and will take notes "on the side" as need be.

LD:

1. I am a lay judge. I only judge PF or Speech so if I get placed in a LD round, it's usually a one-off.
2. Do not spread. Do not ask if I or your competitors want your case as a workaround.
3. I'm not receptive to most counterplans and prefer standard LD cases.
4. Value/Value Criterion will absolutely weigh in my decision.

- Please do not be rude

- I prefer clarity over speed

- Make sure to address important questions/answers from crossfire in your subsequent speeches

I made a new account when I stopped competing, go look on that one for my paradigm.

Contact: hbh37005@uga.edu

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 am a first-year English teacher and Assistant Coach at Jackson High school. I did two years of Lincoln-Douglas during high school, but you should consider me a novice since I am reentering the debate atmosphere. As an English teacher, my main focus will be on the technical aspect of the argument and on the values. However, I also look for good public speaking.

Debaters should avoid speaking too fast since I am getting back into the groove of debating.

Hi! I competed in PF on the local Georgia circuit for 4 years and the national circuit for 2 years at Starr's Mill High School and go to GT.

*I will not vote for homophobic, racist, sexist, xenophobic, or offensive arguments. If you run something bigoted or if you are racist, homophobic, ableist, sexist, etc. - I will drop you.

*Do not interrupt unnecessarily in crossfire (this is especially true if you're a male debater in cross with a female opponent). Do not shake your head, make faces, mutter, etc. during your opponents' speeches (this is especially true if you're a male debater doing this to a female opponent). I hate this.

How to get my Ballot:

I do not want to intervene. Please weigh and do not extend through ink so I don't have to.

I like well warranted and well-weighed arguments. I will vote on arguments most heavily weighed (with good warrants) that still have offense left at the end of the round.

I won't vote for an argument if it isn't in Summary and FF.

Second rebuttal must respond to first rebuttal arguments/offense if the second speaking team is collapsing on those arguments. Defense doesn't have to be in first summary and Summary and FF should be mirrored.

Weighing:

This is one of the most important parts of the debate. I cannot and most likely will not vote for you if you do not tell me how to weigh your arguments. Warrant your weighing analysis.

Signposting

This is crucial. Signpost clearly and often. Tell me where to flow before your speeches in the latter half of the round.

Collapsing

If it isn't in the summary and it's in the FF I won't vote on it. When I was a novice I went for all my arguments. Don't. Pick one to two arguments you are winning on and go for those.

Evidence

From my experience debaters misrepresent evidence a lot. I want Author [Not Institution Only], Credentials (preferably, but not required), and Year. I will not tolerate cards that are cut incorrectly or misrepresented.

If you tell me to look at your opponent's evidence because you believe it is misrepresented- I will.

Speaker Points

Making puns and being witty while having a good debate will make you look good and have high speaks. You will have very low speaks if you are offensive, rude, and generally not conducive to a good debate.

Feel free to ask me about anything before/after round. I will disclose if the tournament allows me to. If you have any questions feel free to email me at <holt.tylerjames@gmail.com> or message me on FB.

I debated national circuit LD at Starr's Mill High School '12 (GA) and did Policy at Vanderbilt University '16 (TN).

I think I am a standard national circuit LD judge. If you only have experience with local debate, this means that I'm fine with (and proactively prefer) spreading and non-traditional arguments. However, if doing so, I recommend using a email chain, for which my email is brenthu1717@gmail.com.

---------------

LD Paradigm

---------------

My general preference for debate argument types is Framework >= Plan-Focused/Util > Theory >> Kritiks.

Framework

I like philosophy debate a lot, especially analytical ethical philosophy. If you frequently read cards from Singer, Korsgaard, Mackie, and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy in general, I would probably really enjoy judging you.

- I enjoy cases that are balanced between framework and contention-level offense, e.g., the AC spending half its time justifying an ethical system (utilitarianism, Kant, Hobbes, virtue ethics, divine command, moral skepticism, etc.) and then the rest on offense under that framework.

- I'm extremely opposed to theoretically-justified frameworks/affirmative framework choice. I think these things kill philosophy education, which is the most useful part of debate. If you can't prove that util is objectively true, what's even the point of pretending it's true if we have no reason to believe it?

- I'm not a fan of vague standards like "structural violence" where practically anything commonly considered bad can be considered an impact. Winter and Leighton are the bane of my existence.

- Your impacts need to actually link to an ethical philosophy in the round. Explain to me why I should care about people dying, why human rights exist, and why racism is bad in the context of the round.

Plan-focused/Util

I can enjoy a Plan-focused or whole-resolution util debate just as much, however, and I've done Policy in the past.

- Weighing is wonderful, and probably the point where you will best be able to pick up high speaks.

- Things like author-specific indicts or methodological critiques of particular studies are fantastic. Tell me things like, "This study only has a sample size of n=24" or "The study's authors indicated the following problems with their own study."

- Impact turns are great. I can’t promise it’s always the best idea, but I’ll probably love it if the 1AR is four minutes of “global warming good” or "economic collapse prevents nuclear war."

- Counterplans are a very important neg tool, but I think some of the more abusive ones, like 50 States CP or Consult CP are difficult to defend in terms of making debate a good activity.

- In LD, I'd prefer you just read one unconditional CP.

Theory

- If the AC is super spiky, please number the spikes. This will make it a lot easier for me to flow. If you spout out single-sentence arguments for a full minute, I’ll be more inclined to vote on them if I can clearly tell where one ends and another begins.

- I like clearly articulated theory shells in normal Interpretation-Violations-Standards-Voters format. It makes it much easier to flow compared to paragraph theory.

- I would prefer if you shared pre-written shells in the email chain, even if they're only analytical.

- I default to competing interpretations but am receptive to reasonability if mentioned.

- I like RVIs and will often vote on them, especially for the aff. If you're the aff and you're not sure if you should go for 4 minutes of the RVI in the 1AR, my advice is probably yes.

Kritiks

- Post-fiat Kritiks are fine. I'm not very receptive to pre-fiat Kritiks. If you aren't sure about the distinction, think about whether your alternative negates the resolution. For example, if the resolution is "The US gov should do [x]", and your alternative is "The US gov should not do [x]" or "The US gov should instead do [y]", that's fine. If your alternative is only "People around the world should..." or "The judge should..." or "The debate community should...," I'm probably not going to enjoy it. If the alt doesn't even have an actor and is just to "reject the aff," that's even worse.

- Although I’m generally well-versed with the basic ones like Cap/Security/Fem K, my understanding of the more esoteric ones falls off. Although I will try to evaluate the round as fairly as possible, I haven’t spent much time reading 1970s Continentals, and you can’t assume that I’ll have intimate knowledge of their arguments ahead of time.

- I lean towards the Role of the Ballot being just whoever proves the resolution true or false (offense-defense is also acceptable).

- Fairness definitely matters. Education might matter to some degree. I am very loathe to consider anything else as an independent voter. If your argument is nothing more than "Util justifies slavery, so auto-drop them," I am not likely to be agreeable.

- If your NRs often include the claim, "It's not a link of omission; it's a link of commission," I am probably not the judge for you.

Miscellaneous

- I'm fine with flex prep (asking questions during prep time) if you want it. I think it's a good norm for debate.

- I do not care if you sit or stand.

---------------

Policy Paradigm

---------------

Read the Plan-focused/Util and Kritiks sections of the LD paradigm, but you can ignore most of the rest. Due to my LD background, I am much more willing to vote on philosophical positions. If you want to go for "Don't do the plan because objective morality doesn't exist" or "Pass the plan because that's most in line with Aristotle's notion of virtue," I'm totally fine with that.

Theory

- I still prefer clearly articulated Interpretation-Violation-Standards-Voters theory shells, even in Policy.

- I'm more willing to accept conditional CPs in Policy, although it gets really sketchy with conditional K's, especially if there's performative contradictions.

Miscellaneous

- I'm probably more willing than most Policy judges to consider analytics. I don't think you need a card for every argument you make, and oftentimes just having a warranted argument is sufficient.

---------------

Public Forum Paradigm

---------------

I understand that Public Forum has different end goals than LD or Policy. I will try to evaluate it through the following in contrast to LD or Policy:

- I will not require explicit ethical frameworks. If something sounds bad, like "It kills people" or "It hurts the economy" or "It is unfair," I'll try to evaluate that in some gestalt manner. You can probably expect a little bit of judge intervention might be necessary in the case of mutually exclusive impact frameworks and lack of weighing.

- I will generally keep in mind who is "speaking better." Although this will not change my vote in most cases, if the round is really close I might use that as the determiner.

- If I ask for a card and you can't find it, especially if it has a statistic, I will drop 1 speaker point for poor evidence norms.

About Me:

Hello! I competed for 3 years in Public Forum at Columbus High School, class of 2018. I currently attend Georgia Tech where I study Neuroscience. Being able to effectively research and communicate has opened more doors than any other avenue in my life, and that is why I am judging.

My Speech Preferences:

I am okay with speed, but no spreading please. If you want me to heavily consider a specific argument or piece of evidence, be sure to place emphasis on it by delegating a decent amount of time to it in your speech.

Speak confidently and signpost!

I am fine with roadmaps prior to speeches.

Please extend properly. Tell me the most important aspects of the round in your summary and final focus. This is where i will determine the voters.

Weighing:

In the context of the round, tell me why your impact has the most significant effect and why your arguments are the most important. The team that makes this clearer often sits in a good spot at the end of the round.

Evidence:

If a card is too good to be true or cut incorrectly, call out your opponent. If a card cannot be produced in 45 seconds, I will assume is was misappropriated or nonexistent. If there is particular clash surrounding one piece of evidence, I may ask to see it at the end of the round.

Speaker Points:

I assign speaker points on a 25-30 scale, with 25 being below-average and 30 being a flawless exhibition. The effective use of eye contact, tone, and movements are all considered in my determination of speaker points. Other than that, just speak fluently and with confidence!

I debated for 4 years in high school and I would consider myself technical.

I need understandable evidence shown and clearly told to me in almost all instances to be able to flow an argument to your side. Though I will take logical arguments if the concepts are well known and make sense to link into the debate.

I try to judge based off of evidence that is said in speeches, and not flow arguments that only show up in crossfire. Make sure if there is something important said in crossfire make sure it said in the following speech!

Being able to clearly understand what I'm voting for throughout the round is also important, it makes it easier for me to put on my flow what you are advocating for and why. So voters or however you feel comfortable presenting it to me helps me see the round a lot clearer.

I would also prefer if during the speeches for debaters to not spread their speeches, because i'm not the greatest getting everything that you will say, and because of that it may confuse me how your case is structured.

Preferences for crossfire, I would like debaters to stand if they can and face me while asking questions so that the crossfire doesn't get as "heated" or personal.

I will be judging mostly based on evidence to back your arguments up and will understand and try to weigh logical arguments against something your opponent says, if possible. Though usually you will need evidence of this logic working before or something along those lines.

I also will be judging non-biased as possible, and when I weigh I usually weigh human lives over everything else. Because disregard of a lot of human lives is almost never worth a "little bit" of money.

I need understandable evidence shown and clearly told to me in almost all instances to be able to flow an argument to your side.

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.

--- Current Varsity Public Forum Debater at Vestavia Hills High School. Forth year; Senior. ---

Speaker Point Determinants: Be respectful and kind throughout the round. Speak clearly and at a modest speed. Do not talk while the opposing team is giving their speech.

Other Preferences: Do not assume that everyone knows about something in the round. Be sure to explain EVERYTHING clearly. Give solid evidence (cards) to support your arguments. Give a road map and voters during your summary and final focus so I can follow where you are on the flow. Summary and final focus should be discussing similar topics: parallel. In the summary, I like to see weighing (why your argument is more impactful/important that your opponents). In the final focus, tell me exactly why you have won the debate, and DO NOT bring up any new arguments. EXTEND anything the opposing team did not refute.

*** Make sure connect your arguments with the FRAMEWORK that is established in the round (if there is one). Do this throughout the ENTIRE round. I will be determining the winner by the team that does that the best. ***

College student judge. Recently graduated from SMHS. 

My connection to Debate - Parent of student at Ravenwood High
Years of Experience - 3 years judging PFD

I do take my own notes/flow the debate.
Debaters should make eye contact and speak at normal speeds as opposed to read/speak as fast as possible in order to fit in the most points within their allotted time.

The factors that I usually consider when making my decision on who won/lost the debate is whether the teams made logical/cohesive arguments that reflect/impact the most important points.

LD Paradigm

This is the LD paradigm. Do a Ctrl+F search for “Policy Paradigm” or “PF Paradigm” if you’re looking for those. They’re toward the bottom.

I debated LD in high school and policy in college. I coach LD, so I'll be familiar with the resolution.

If there's an email chain, you can assume I want to be on it. No need to ask. My email is: jacobdnails@gmail.com. For online debates, NSDA file share is equally fine.

Summary for Prefs
I've judged 1,000+ LD rounds from novice locals to TOC finals. I don't much care whether your approach to the topic is deeply philosophical, policy-oriented, or traditional. I do care that you debate the topic. Frivolous theory or kritiks that shift the debate to some other proposition are inadvisable.

Yale '21 Update
I've noticed an alarming uptick in cards that are borderline indecipherable based on the highlighted text alone. If the things you're saying aren't forming complete and coherent sentences, I am not going to go read the rest of the un-underlined text and piece it together for you.

Theory/T
Topicality is good. There's not too many other theory arguments I find plausible.

Most counterplan theory is bad and would be better resolved by a "Perm do the counterplan" challenge to competition. Agent "counterplans" are never competitive opportunity costs.

I don’t have strong opinions on most of the nuances of disclosure theory, but I do appreciate good disclosure practices. If you think your wiki exemplifies exceptional disclosure norms (open source, round reports, and cites), point it out before the round starts, and you might get +.1-.2 speaker points.

Tricks
If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or mis-allocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. I am quite willing to give an RFD of “I didn’t flow that,” “I didn’t understand that,” or “I don’t think these words in this order constitute a warranted argument.” I tend not to have the speech document open during the speech, so blitz through spikes at your own risk.

The above notwithstanding, I have no particular objection to voting for arguments with patently false conclusions. I’ve signed ballots for warming good, wipeout, moral skepticism, Pascal’s wager, and even agenda politics. What is important is that you have a well-developed and well-warranted defense of your claims. Rounds where a debater is willing to defend some idiosyncratic position against close scrutiny can be quite enjoyable. Be aware that presumption still lies with the debater on the side of common sense. I do not think tabula rasa judging requires I enter the round agnostic about whether the earth is round, the sky is blue, etc.

Warrant quality matters. Here is a non-exhaustive list of common claims I would not say I have heard a coherent warrant for: permissibility affirms an "ought" statement, the conditional logic spike, aff does not get perms, pretty much anything debaters say using the word “indexicals.”

Kritiks
The negative burden is to negate the topic, not whatever word, claim, assumption, or framework argument you feel like.

Calling something a “voting issue” does not make it a voting issue.

The texts of most alternatives are too vague to vote for. It is not your opponent's burden to spend their cross-ex clarifying your advocacy for you.

Philosophy
I am pretty well-read in analytic philosophy, but the burden is still on you to explain your argument in a way that someone without prior knowledge could follow.

I am not well-read in continental philosophy, but read what you want as long as you can explain it and its relevance to the topic.

You cannot “theoretically justify” specific factual claims that you would like to pretend are true. If you want to argue that it would be educational to make believe util is true rather than actually making arguments for util being true, then you are welcome to make believe that I voted for you. Most “Roles of the Ballot” are just theoretically justified frameworks in disguise.

Cross-ex
CX matters. If you can't or won't explain your arguments, you can't win on those arguments.

Regarding flex prep, using prep time for additional questions is fine; using CX time to prep is not.

LD paradigm ends here.

Policy Paradigm

General
I qualified to the NDT a few times at GSU. I now actively coach LD but judge only a handful of policy rounds per year and likely have minimal topic knowledge.

My email is jacobdnails@gmail.com

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain. No, I don't need a compiled doc at end of round.

Framework

Yes.

Competition/Theory
I have a high threshold for non-resolutional theory. Most cheaty-looking counterplans are questionably competitive, and you're better off challenging them at that level.

Extremely aff leaning versus agent counterplans. I have a hard time imagining what the neg could say to prove that actions by a different agent are ever a relevant opportunity cost.

I don't think there's any specific numerical threshold for how many opportunity costs the neg can introduce, but I'm not a fan of underdeveloped 1NC arguments, and counterplans are among the main culprits.

Not persuaded by 'intrinsicness bad' in any form. If your net benefit can't overcome that objection, it's not a germane opportunity cost. Perms should be fleshed out in the 2AC; please don't list off five perms with zero explanation.

Advantages/DAs
I do find existential risk literature interesting, but I dislike the lazy strategy of reading a card that passingly references nuke war/terrorism/warming and tagging it as "extinction." Terminal impacts short of extinction are fine, but if your strategy relies on establishing an x-risk, you need to do the work to justify that.

Case debate is underrated.

Straight turns are great turns.

Topics DAs >> Politics.

I view inserting re-highlightings as basically a more guided version of "Judge, read that card more closely; it doesn't say what they want it to," rather than new cards in their own right. If the author just happens to also make other arguments that you think are more conducive to your side (e.g. an impact card that later on suggests a counterplan that could solve their impact), you should read that card, not merely insert it.

Kritiks
See section on framework. I'm not a very good judge for anything that could be properly called a kritik; the idea that the neg can win by doing something other than defending a preferable federal government policy is a very hard sell, at least until such time as the topics stop stipulating the United States as the actor.I would much rather hear a generic criticism of settler colonialism that forwards native land restoration as a competitive USFG advocacy than a security kritik with aff-specific links and an alternative that rethinks in-round discourse.

While I'm a fervent believer in plan-focus, I'm not wedded to util/extinction-first/scenario planning/etc as the only approach to policymaking. I'm happy to hear strategies that involve questioning those ethical and epistemological assumptions; they're just not win conditions in their own right.

CX
CX is important and greatly influences my evaluation of arguments. Tag-team CX is fine in moderation.

PF Paradigm

9 November 2018 Update (Peach State Classic @ Carrollton):

While my background is primarily in LD/Policy, I do not have a general expectation that you conform to LD/Policy norms. If I happen to be judging PF, I'd rather see a PF debate.

I have zero tolerance for evidence fabrication. If I ask to see a source you have cited, and you cannot produce it or have not accurately represented it, you will lose the round with low speaker points.

Have more than one year experience in debate judge. As a senior leader in my current organization, I host and present several meetings globally. My goal is deliver right contents to the audience, demonstrate appropriate body language, keep the audience interested by not repeating the contents, have a constant eye contact, modulation of voice, using the right speed and pronunciations to deliver the contents effectively.

During the judging process, I take notes and compare the notes for providing points, my rationale and feedback. I look for passion from the students on the topics they debate. This will show their hard work and how involved in the topics.

I am a Parent Judge. I have been judging PF for roughly 2 years.

Here are some important points to consider about my judging preferences:

- Be organized and clear. Speak loudly and clearly. Clarity is much more important to me than speed. If I cannot follow your arguments and miss them in my notes, I will not be able to evaluate those arguments and, possibly, will not be able to vote for you.

- Signposting is a must. Tell me what you are talking about before making your argument, so I know where to flow it and where it fits in the round. If you do not, there is a high chance I will not be able to follow your argument and, thus, cannot evaluate it in the round. Also, try to avoid technical jargon and tons of abbreviations—at the least, explain them to me and simplify the round.

- I will vote for the team that makes clear, logical, and realistic claims and does effective weighing of impacts. Have comparative reasoning behind your arguments that is persuasive. Also, explain to me why I should care more about your arguments and how they are more important than your opponents’.

- Be Confident, but DO NOT BE RUDE. Always treat your opponents with respect and courtesy in crossfire and rebuttal.

- Summary: I will start deciding my ballot during this speech, so extend important arguments that you want me to evaluate, explain the reasoning behind them, show their importance/relevance, and thoroughly develop them. Grab attention by confidently answering opposing refutations.

- Final Focus: Wrap up, weigh, and extend/emphasize key points and show me why ultimately that one ballot is for your team.

- Your framework, if you have a meaningful one, should be stated at the beginning of your first constructive speech. In your framework, tell me how I should evaluate certain impacts and why they should matter the most. In absence of a meaningful framework, I will evaluate on a cost-benefit analysis.

- Evidence – I will try not to look at evidence unless either side explicitly states that they want me to or if I have a serious doubt as to the legitimacy and truth of the evidence.

- Speaker Points - I will not hesitate to deduct speaker points if I feel that you are being disrespectful, insensitive, and uncourteous. I award points based on effective rhetoric and vocal emphasis to important points.

In the end, remember this: public forum debate is all about PERSUADING the public audience.

Good Luck!

Experience/Background: I coached at Columbus HS from 2013-2021, primarily Public Forum, and now coach at Carrollton HS (2021-present). I did not debate in high school or college, but I have been coaching and judging PF, a little LD, and IEs since 2013, both locally (Georgia) and on the national circuit, including TOC and NSDA Nationals. I spent several years (2017-2022) as a senior staff member with Summit Debate and previously led labs at Emory (2016-2019).

Judging Preferences:

If you have specific questions about me as a judge that are not answered below (or need clarification), please feel free to ask them. Some general guidelines and answers to frequently asked questions are below:

1. Speed: I can flow a reasonably fast speed when I'm at the top of my game, but I am human. If it's late in the day/tournament, I am likely tired, and my capacity for speed drops accordingly. I will not be offended if you ask me about this before the round. For online rounds, I prefer that you speak at a more moderate speed. I will tell you "clear" if I need you to slow down. If I am flowing on paper, you should err on the slower side of speed than if I am flowing on my laptop.

2. Signposting and Roadmaps: Signposting is good. Please do it. It makes my job easier. Off-time roadmaps aren't really needed if you're just going "their case, our case", but do give a roadmap if there's a more complex structure to your speech.

3. Consistency of Arguments/Making Decisions: Anything you expect me to vote on should be in summary and final focus. Defense is not "sticky" -- meaning you cannot extend it from rebuttal to final focus. Please weigh. I love voters in summary, but I am fine if you do a line-by-line summary.

4. Prep (in-round and pre-round): Please pre-flow before you enter the round. Monitor your own prep time. If you and your opponents want to time each other to keep yourselves honest, go for it. Do not steal prep time - if you have called for a card and your opponents are looking for it, you should not be writing/prepping unless you are also running your prep time. (If a tournament has specific rules that state otherwise, I will defer to tournament policy.) On that note, have your evidence ready. It should not take you longer than 20-30 seconds to pull up a piece of evidence when asked. If you delay the round by taking forever to find a card, your speaker points will probably reflect it.

5. Overviews in second rebuttal: In general, I think a short observation or weighing mechanism is probably more okay than a full-fledged contention that you're trying to sneak in as an "overview". Tread lightly.

6. Frontlines: Second speaking team should answer turns and frontline in rebuttal. I don't need a 2-2 split, but I do think you need to address the speech that preceded yours.

7. Theory, Kritiks, and Progressive Arguments: I prefer not judging theory debates. Strongly prefer not judging theory debates. If you are checking back against a truly abusive practice, I will listen to and evaluate the argument. If you are using theory/Ks/etc. in a way intended to overwhelm/intimidate an opponent who has no idea what's going on, I am not going to respond well to that.

8. Crossfire: I do not flow crossfire. If it comes up in cross and you expect it to serve a role in my decision-making process, I expect you to bring it up in a later speech.

9. Speaker points: I basically never give 30s, so you should not expect them from me. My range is usually from 28-29.7.

3 yrs judging Public Forum Debate.

I am a parent judge, so definitely not an expert. I will take notes and flow. Debaters should avoid speaking too fast, I will try my best to keep up, but I believe that it is more important to make stronger arguments than more arguments. "Spreading" will open yourself up to the very distinct chance of losing.

Please be civil to the opposing team in order to maintain decent speaker points. Do not be overly aggressive and interrupt during crossfire. Clear, organized thoughts and the ability to defend your arguments will win the day. Over the top emotional fake passion will not sway me.

Make sure to challenge your opponent's arguments especially when outlandish impacts are proposed. Impress me by knowing the context and background for the evidence presented. Overall, I want the debate to be a battle of ideas, and the team that wins is the one that convinces the judge that their position is the best. Good Luck!

I am a debate coach in Georgia. I also competed in LD and PF. Take that for whatever you think it means.

• LD - Value/Value Criterion - this is what separates us from the animals (or at least the policy debaters). It is the unique feature of LD Debate. Have a good value and criterion and link your arguments back to it.
• PF - I side on the traditional side of PF. Don't throw a lot of jargon at me or simply read cards... this isn't Policy Jr., compete in PF for the debate animal it is. Remember debate, especially PF, is meant to persuade - use all the tools in your rhetorical toolbox: Logos, Ethos, and Pathos. I want to see CLEAR evidence clash.
• Speed - I like speed but not spreading as if it is policy. Speak as fast as is necessary but keep it intelligible. There aren't a lot of jobs for speed readers after high school (auctioneers and pharmaceutical disclaimer commercials) so make sure you are using speed for a purpose. I can keep up with the amount of speed you decide to read at, however if I feel that your opponent is at a disadvantage and cannot understand you then I will put my pen down and stop flowing and that will signal you to slow down.
• Know your case, like you actually did the research and wrote the case and researched the arguments from the other side. If you present it, I expect you to know it from every angle - I want you to know the research behind the statistic and the whole article, not just the blurb on the card.
• Casing - Mostly traditional but I am game for kritiks, counterplans - but perform them well, KNOW them, I won't do the links for you. I am a student of Toulmin - claim-evidence-warrant/impacts. I don't make the links and don't just throw evidence cards at me with no analysis.
• I like clash. Argue the cases presented, mix it up, have some fun, but remember that debate is civil discourse - don't take it personal, being the loudest speaker won't win the round, being rude to your opponent won't win you the round.
• Debating is a performance in the art of persuasion and your job is to convince me, your judge (not your opponent!!) - use the art of persuasion to win the round: eye contact, vocal variations, appropriate gestures, and know your case well enough that you don't have to read every single word hunched over a computer screen. Keep your logical fallacies for your next round. Rhetoric is an art.
• Technology Woes - I will not stop the clock because your laptop just died or you can't find your case - not my problem, fix it or don't but we are going to move on.
• Ethics - Debate is a great game when everyone plays by the rules. Play by the rules - don't give me a reason to doubt your veracity.
• Win is decided by the flow (remember if you don't LINK it, it isn't on the flow), who made the most successful arguments and Speaker Points are awarded to the best speaker - I end up with some low point wins. I am fairly generous on speaker points compared to some judges. I disclose winner but not speaker points.
• Enjoy yourself. Debate is the best sport in the world - win or lose - learn something from each round, don't gloat, don't disparage other teams, judges, or coaches, and don't try to convince me after the round is over. Leave it in the round and realize you may have just made a friend that you will compete against and talk to for the rest of your life. Don't be so caught up in winning that you forget to have some fun - in the round, between rounds, on the bus, and in practice.
• Questions? - if you have a question ask me.

About Me:

Hi! I competed for 1 year in Novice/Varsity PF at Columbus High, class of 2016. I've debated on the local Georgia circuit and the national circuit, with judging experience in Georgia and Alabama. I currently attend the University of Alabama-Birmingham and compete on the Mock Trial team as a captain. Speech/debate has been a big part of my life, and I owe most of my success to knowledge and experienced gained while competing.

My Speech Preferences:

On a speed scale from 1 to Eminem's verse in 'Rap God', I can handle about a 7. If your argument is complex or contains a heavy amount of background info, you might want to consider slowing down to make sure any logic is not missed or misheard.

Claims/warrants/impacts should all be of equal quality. A strong impact does not make up for a shaky warrant.

Please extend properly. Summary and FF are where I get my voters so points extended through those speeches must be weighed effectively.

Speaking of weighing, do it within the context of the round. Telling me how I should weigh your arguments makes my job much easier, and ends up benefitting the team who does the work for me. Any weighing analysis should be warranted in some way, also within the context of the case or round.

Clear signposting is the best way to win my ballot (or any ballot for that matter). Tell me what I should be flowing and how I should be flowing it. I am fine with roadmaps as long as they are not complicated or obnoxious.

Speak confidently. Tell me a story about why you should win.

Evidence:

If you feel a card is too good to be true or cut incorrectly, call it out. I give about 30-45 seconds to find a card, and if the opposing team cannot produce the card I will assume it is like the Bowling Green massacre, nonexistent. I will take a look at any card that is referenced multiple times by either side, as those are the pieces of evidence that make or break a round. Please include the author and date in your evidence citation. If you indict a card, publication or author please have a good warrant for doing so. Weak indicts will only make you look weaker.

Speaker Points:

I give speaks on a 25-30 scale, with 25 being a slightly below-average performance and 30 being an amazing, fluid performance. Eye contact is a must, as is proper volume and tone control. Podium presence is big, so please be mindful of any movement that could be distracting and detract from your overall performance. If you are going to move at all, please do so confidently. I do give 1 or 2 points for jokes, puns or memes (or whatever is trending on Twitter) if you can tastefully work them into your speech.

Contact Info:

If you would like to contact me (after the round) and get feedback on how I viewed specific argument, feel free to email me at alexplazas@gmail.com.

1: In LD, the value and criterion is important, and should be relevant throughout the round

2: Speed is ineffective if I can't understand what is being said

3: Avoid an over-abundance of jargon.

I am a second year varsity debater who is actively competing on both the local and national circuit.

I am generally going to vote off of Final Focus, unless key parts of your argument have already been dropped throughout the round. With that said, do not attempt to reintroduce something in Final Focus that you dropped in Summary. I won't weigh it and at that point it's just a waste of your speech time. Road maps are nice, but not necessary. Sign posting, however, is necessary to at least some extent. If you have a framework, it must be extended throughout the whole round if you want me to evaluate it. I prefer your own analysis of your/your opponents' evidence rather than you providing an author's analysis.

General Speech Tips:

1. Crossfires are not speeches, do not treat them as such. Attempting to turn crossfire into a speech will result in loss of speaker points.

2. 2nd Rebuttal should response to opponent's offense in 1st Rebuttal.

3. 1st Summary should respond to opponent's offense in 2nd Rebuttal.

4. Voters in summary are not necessary.

5. If you have not successfully attacked the warranting behind your opponents' impacts, you must weigh them against your own impacts in Final Focus.

6. If you ask for my paradigm and then don't follow it, you will lose speaker points.

Former debater with two years experience. I did my public forum at Auburn High School. I am very familiar with the literature of this topic. Speaking speed is not a problem for me as long as it's still clear.

I typically judge the round based on who proves to me that they upheld the framework better and carried their arguments throughout the flow in a more direct matter.

Make my job easy for me. Tell me what you are referring to as topic and a card name (if it is only one or the other that is fine I just may not immediately catch your link). Signpost in your constructive (ex. "Contention one, card one:..."). Tell me what part of their argument you are addressing with your rebuttal (ie. Claim, warrant, impact, or evidence). Make your voters clear (they should not blend together and should almost end up sounding like a list). I will not take away points if you do not do those things, they just make it much easier for to understand and digest your arguments; if I can't understand you then I can't vote for you.

If you refer to a piece of evidence that becomes a point of tension in the round or is something that either your opponents or I want to see and you cannot produce it to us within two minutes, then as far as my flow and I are concerned, it doesn't exist.

I am a first year out from Columbus High School, currently at Agnes Scott College. I debated four years on the local and national circuit.

Speed

• Speed is good with me, as long as it is still clear. If I can't understand it, it only hurts you.
• If something is very important you should slow down and emphasize it just to make sure I get it on my flow. I get a lot but I can't guarantee everything.

My Ballot

• I do not flow crossfire. That means if something happened in crossfire that you think is important to this round then bring it up in a speech.
• If your opponent responds to your arguments, you have to respond to that in order for me to consider it in the round. You can't just keep reiterating your arguments, saying it multiple times doesn't mean I'll ignore their responses.
• No offensive overviews with new material in second rebuttal (basically don't try to put a new contention in second rebuttal).
• Everything important in final focus should also be in summary.
• I will vote off of what is properly extended into final focus.
• Weighing is crucial. If you don't want me to decide what arguments are more important then you need to tell me. Don't get mad at me if you don't weigh and then I decide what arguments are more important.

Framework

• Honestly, most of the time I think framework in PF is dumb. However, if you want to run it, I won’t hold it against you.

Speaker Points (a general guide)

• 25: You were either completely incoherent, extremely offensive, or both.
• 26: Your speeches were disorganized, pretty under time, and/or quite unclear.
• 27: Average.
• 28: Generally organized, clear, use up all time.
• 29: Well organized, spoke well, use up all time.
• 30: Amazing organzation, very clear and coherent speaking, use up all time, overall spectacular performance.
• Disclaimer: this is a very rough guide, the reasons the points I give will definitely vary throughout rounds and if I have specific reasons I will try to include in either written or oral critiques.

Evidence

• I expect all evidence to be properly represented. If you believe your opponents are misrepresenting a piece of evidence, tell me to call it and I will at the end of the round.

Demeanor

• I am fine with aggression just don't be a terrible person.
• If you make any racist, sexist, or otherwise derogatory or disrespectful comments, I will give you extremely low speaks and notify your coach.

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 consider myself a tabula rasa judge

- I will not flow or weigh anything in cross; if you extract a concession or something important, please bring it up in a speech

- Speed is fine but please speak loud and clear; slow down/emphasize for card author/year and important statistics/facts

- I'm fine with complex arguments, theory, etc.

- You can email me at gabe.smith@vikings.berry.edu

Debate Experience: Graduated HS 2018; 3 years of PF debate for James Madison Memorial High School. Now at Emory

1) Clean extensions - This means responding to every response on your relevant offense in summary. Extend your warrants and impacts fully eg: If you say the tagline or a card name - I will not flow it for you; you must explain the argument behind the tagline or card name.

2) Weighing- Weighing is the first thing I evaluate at the end of the round. Tell me where I should vote. Logic matters.

3) Summaries and Final Focus - You can extend defense directly from first rebuttal to first final focus unless the second speaking team goes back to case in second rebuttal. All offense must be in summary and final focus.

Those three things are the most important and applicable to every debate round.

4) Speed. If you want to speak fast, make sure you're good at speaking fast. If I can't understand you, it can't make it to my flow. That said, speed rarely is a problem.

5) Second Rebuttal. Second Rebuttal doesn't have to go back to case. However, I think its strategic for you to do so. If first rebuttal puts a turn on your case, however, make sure you address this in second rebuttal.

6) Dropped Arguments: Arguments are dropped after you ignore it in summary. Please collapse strategically. If you don't respond to turns on a dropped argument, your opponents can extend them. Kicking contentions/subpoints is okay as long as you do it correctly.

7) Evidence. All evidence must have author and source. eg: "Vovata of Harvard University" rather than "Vovata" or "Harvard University". I will call for evidence if either your opponent wants me to or if its extended in two different ways. Obviously, you may call for evidence from your opponents etc. but if you do I expect to hear about it in speech.

8) Dates: I think if you have time you can put dates in your case/rebuttal. If you don't, you can open up yourself to date theory. For people running date theory - tell me why it puts you in a structural disadvantage in context to the topic. Don't just cite "NSDA Rules"

Hi, I'm Jacob. I was the NPDA national champion in 2022 at Rice. By the end of my career, I mostly went straight up on the aff and went for K or theory on the neg.

---

PARLI PARADIGM

This has a lot of opinions but I think it's worth articulating that I will vote for anything you win in front of me, even if I don't super like it. We'll just both be happier if you go for something I do like!

1. AFF

A. Straight Up Aff

Collapse to as few links and impacts as possible and we will all be happy !!!!

I am most amenable to small, probable, and violence mitigating/reducing affirmatives. Also, econ. Please, econ? I think that impacts happening right now are more probable and more resolvable. I also think that status quo violence gives you very good sequencing and net benefits to the perm.

I think I'm pretty forgiving of on-case shadow extensions in the PMR but this is mostly at the warrant level. Tags should be extended in the MG.

B. Kritical Aff

I read a fair degree of these in my career and I understand both their strategic and personal value. Some of the best positions I've ever seen in parli have been K affs. That said, some of the worst and most vapid positions have also been K affs.

Personally, I think too many K Affs spend too long on why the resolution is bad and not enough explaining what they actually advocate for or what framework they operate under. Let the "res bad" args chill until the neg reads a viable TVA.

In terms of T, I think that the limited prep and non-disclosure elements of parli make T incredibly convincing in parli. I also think that many K Affs approach truisms which is problematic from a debate standpoint. On the other hand, I think T often does a poor job of exposing brightlines for things like truth testing, procedural fairness, and limits. This is where good K Affs can win. I am less amenable to general impact turns to T (unless the T is honest to god policing) but will vote on them if the Aff wins them.

I think the meat of this debate happens at the TVA, followed by the voters, and then by the standards. Usually, whoever is winning the TVA and method testing will likely win my ballot.

FWIW, in a world where every perfect argument is made by both sides, I think I go 60-40 for T.

C. MG Theory

MG theory is simultaneously highly abusive and totally necessary. I think it works best the stronger the actual abuse it's checking is. This begs the question of what I think "actual abuse" is. I think that PICs, delay CPs, and object fiat are abusive. I think that un-specced alts, actor CPs, and reading a negative framework are not abusive. I'm okay with Condo, especially if it's just one condo advocacy.

In general, I think a really clear MG shell with two or three standards is the best strategy for my ballot. The PMR should collapse to one voter and justify its existence. For the neg, I think you should go hard for one voter and weigh it in the LOR. I also am far more amenable to RVIs on MG theory than anything else since I think MG theory does require some chilling.

To this note, I am actually much more supportive of PMC theory. Read AFC or No Neg Fiat or any insane theory arg in the PMC and you get a better debate--I'll also give you more leeway on the PMR since the neg had two speeches to answer it.

D. Misc Aff

I think affirmatives can be conditional but I don't think it's fair for the PMR to kick the aff if prior aff speeches haven't established aff conditionality. Basically, the MG should say "we're condo" or don't kick the aff in front of me.

Aff tricks are funny, go for it.

2. NEG

A. Straight Up Neg

I did not go for this a ton. But I like to think I'm well informed and capable of evaluating it. I'm particularly fond of Econ DAs. I just love Econ tbh and believe it can be weighed supper convincingly. Outside of that, I think hyper-specific, small DAs are more convincing than general big stick ones. Like, yes, give me South African Agriculture DA or Space Junk DA.

Not super hot on general Tix but if you're listing specific senators and bills, I get a lot more compelled.

B. Kritik

I loved kritiks as a debater. I like them as a judge. In my time in debate, I read Edelman, Cap, Lacan, Deleuze, and Baudrillard. I consider myself familiar with most lit bases but that doesn't mean I'll backfill whatever the hell a microtexture is for you. "This makes no sense" is a voting issue.

I find "do both" perms very convincing. This is why a good kritik either needs to win that it has substantial, specific links to the affirmative (material or rhetorical, depends on what framing you use) which are DAs to the perm or that the kritik can solve the aff (not just the root cause of the aff).

However - and I think this might be controversial - I do not find sequencing perms convincing at all. I'm not even sure if they're really perms! I think they have little to no K solvency and might be abusive at a meta-debate level.

I think that framework is necessary but often a wash in rounds. Most generalized "ontology first" or "serial policy failure" warrants won't get you a frameout. However, frameworks can either spike the aff framework or the perm or weigh the impacts of the K higher.

Alts should be explained through solvency. I think that affs currently fail to contest alt solvency for the K and Ks get away with inane or nonexistent solvency. It seems that teams read DAs that are external offense but not actual solvency presses which allows the K to weigh its impacts against the DAs.

C. Topicality/Theory

I love topicality and theory on the neg. In my time, I wrote bidirectional interps, I ran spec, I ran must pass texts. I think that theory is nuanced, complicated, and really a question of what we want debate to be.

I think collapsing to a couple standards as outweighing or internal linking every other standard is the best path for the block. The same goes for collapsing to a single voter and weighing it against everything. I think MGs often read a bunch of standards but don't link them to voters so negatives can leverage that.

I paradigmatically evaluate We Meets as terminal defense. I think they functionally probably aren't but I think it's bad for debate if I don't treat them as terminal defense. That said, I don't know how I evaluate standards level offense against a We Meet. I think I err towards having to a-priori resolve the violation.

I think textuality always comes first on interpretations. If we are creating a norm, that text is our only stasis point. Poorly written interpretations should lose.

I have no idea what reasonability means. I think it's an upward battle to win anything other than counter-interpretations in front of me. When interpreations are "noncompetitive," I think the negative needs to be winning why an interp perm resolves for the standards of the counterinterpretations because I think it often doesn't. Absent this, I grant the aff implicit competition through the inclusion of the aff.

I'll vote for an RVI if it's warranted but I'm not sympathetic to narratives of "this theory is frivolous."

I have always been open to the idea of weighing a topical aff against theory or topicality but I'm not sure what this would require.

3. MISC

A. Auto-Drops

If you are non-black, you should not read afropess. And if you read this and think "aw damn, now I can't run pess," reevaluate please.

I think I am less afraid to drop people for actively being dicks to novices. I'll tank speaks first but don't test me.

B. Norms and Behaviors

Be nice. Operate in good faith and assume others are too, it makes life better.

Passing texts ASAP even when not asked is a good norm for everyone involved.

I will likely not vote on out-of-round behavior, especially if it is non-verifiable. This applies to "call out" Ks but also arguments like disclosure theory.

Cowardice is not a voting issue.

I will give my paradigm in round.

Parent judge. Have been judging for 3+ years.

Paradigm:

I favor logical, well articulated and; persuasive delivery over speed and overly passionate delivery.

Evidence - if a card is weak, out of context or too good to be true, call it out and challenge it. If you leave it uncontested, you are missing an opportunity.

Crossfire - questions/challenges left answered/uncontested counts in the opponents favor.

Delivery:

No personal attacks, no yelling. Be assertive but not aggressive.

Speak clearly and persuasively. Content is more important than speed.

Respect time. When time is up, don't pile on 50 words to make a point. These will be discarded.

I debated in Houston Tx. in high school and college. I was a policy debater. I have coached and taught debate for 30 years now; Policy, Public Forum, and Lincoln Douglas. I have coached and taught at Langham Creek HS in Houston, Tx., Hanover HS and Dartmouth College in Hanover, NH., Wayland HS in Grand Rapids, MI. and now finally at Auburn HS, in Auburn Alabama.

Emory 2020:

I haven’t judged many circuit level rounds this year, I coach one circuit debater and don’t get to see many high level plan debates. This means that in your first speech you should start slow for the first 5 seconds and speed up as you wish from there

Pref chain:

- Plan debate, policy, LARP: 1

- Traditional debate: 1

- Theory: 3

- K debate: 4

- Tricks: 5

- Performance: 5

I am a very flow judge!!! Tech should be true, otherwise you’re lying… So Truth > Tech.

I cannot stress this enough!!! NO TRICKS, NO SPIKES, NO FRIV THEORY!!! IT IS BAD DEBATE AND ITS GOING TO MAKE ME VERY UNHAPPY!!!

Add me to the email chain: donna.yeager@gmail.com

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS THEN ASK!!! If you aren’t sure you can run something or have a question about my paradigm defaults then asking is the best way to be safe.

I am ok with good spreading, I flow from your speech and will refer to the doc if I missed something or am confused, but clear taglines and authors are important.

I default to the following:

- Neg wins on presumption unless otherwise argued

- Consequentialism for impact calc

Give an off-time road map!!! Every new off case argument will be flowed on a separate sheet of paper!!!

Things I liked in a round:

- Well-developed plans

- Fully linked out DA’s

- Good CP’s

- Proper decorum

- Good FW debate (Rawls, Kant, Hobbes, Locke)

Things I don’t like:

- Performative debate

- High theory K’s

- Spikes, Tricks

- Disclosure theory

- Friv theory

- Bad T/theory shells

- Incoherent spreading

- Speaking for others

- Ptx DA’s

- After round disrespect

- PICs

Disclosure:

I don’t disclose for double-flighted rounds, not that hard of a rule, if there is extra time, I might be able to give an RFD. I don’t disclose speaks.

Speaks:

30: I expect you to win the tournament or be in finals (rarely given)

29.5: Finals or high break rounds, I enjoyed this debate and learned something

29: Good debate, should break, close round with one of the above ^

28.5: Good job, room to improve, well executed arg on my do not like list.

28: You weren’t as clear as you could’ve been, the weighing wasn’t the best

27.5: Same as 28 but worse

27: Worse than 27.5 😊

26.5: You made some serious errors, ran something I don’t like or was hard to judge, you spoke awful

26: Worse than 26.5

25.5-25: You shouldn’t go above 3-3, you made a critical mistake and deserve to lose, you were racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, or ableist

My Public Forum judging philosophy will be the same as my asst. coach, Mr. Will Haynes. So thank you Will!

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 this 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: If an opponent asks for a card, you get one minute to produce it. After one minute, I strike the card from my flow. 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 utilitarianism 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 util, 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, so just keep that in mind before you take that risk.

Speaker Point Scale: These are the criteria I use for determining speaker points. Everyone starts out with a 26. Do these things well to get up to 30.

Come to the round prepared and on time.

Remain calm during crossfire and speeches. Aggression and agitation are not compelling.

Give speeches with a minimal number of "ums" and "likes"

Have a clear organizational structure for your speeches. Signpost and don't jump all over the place on the flow.

Weigh arguments in your rebuttals, summaries, and final focuses. Don't just read a block.

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.