Jordan Berry - Loveless Academic Magnet Program High School

Hello!

I have been a coach and judge since 2015. Most debaters over the years categorize me as a traditional L/D judge. My chief weighing mechanism is usually framework (my undergraduate degree is in philosophy), but I can be persuaded to the contrary. I have no value hierarchy. I strive to keep personal views and ballot intervention away from my RFD. I will evaluate only those arguments brought up by the debaters.

Speed is an issue for me. This is primarily an education and communication activity. I highly doubt either Lincoln or Douglas themselves were spreading, and I've never seen spreading in any real-life situation aside from episodes of "Storage Wars." I do flow the round (though not cross), but "winning the flow" isn't the same as winning the round in some cases; this event is supposed to be persuasive and accessible, not a checklist of responses and replies. Thus, I always roll my eyes when one of my own debaters complains about "lay" judges: in crafting a case/round, they should receive as much consideration as that ex-policy debater.

Other issues for me: do be respectful. Do engage meaningfully with the resolution. Do be honest. Do have fun.

Break a leg!

I debated public forum for four years in high school and currently coach public forum. I frequently judge PF and LD and am fine with speed so long as you are not spreading.

I am excited to judge speech and debate events. I’ve been around middle and high school competitive speech and debate for nearly 20 years. I teach a speech and debate class at LAMP High School.

Before I became an educator, I had a whole career before that! (I’m old.) I’m a retired Air Force public affairs officer, a career that was steeped in real-world communication — sometimes with actual national security implications. I take excellent communication very seriously and am committed to helping students become better communicators.

Speech: I love it when a speech competitor invests fully into the piece, and I forget for a moment that I’m judging a high school competition. Hold nothing back, and pull me in. Pour yourself into your piece. I try to maintain a poker face when I judge, but when you’re tapping into my emotions, you can probably tell. :)

Debate: I despise spreading. I know, I know — that’s how the game is played these days, but I hate it. That’s terrible communication. COMMUNICATE demonstrating evidence of amazing preparation, a strong command of the topic, exemplary communication skills, and phenomenal reason and logic. Then, you’ve got me.

I prefer clarity to speed.  Every. Time. Spreading will lose points with me.

I prefer a well-reasoned argument to number of cards.  While evidence is of course a part of any argument, I particularly reward the team that can apply specific evidence to their argument clearly.

I prefer a team that listens to and responds to the other side's argument appropriately.  

I do not pay much attention to crossfire; IMO, crossfire is your opportunity to see what you can do with your opponent's case.  I want to hear you bring up blocks, refutation and/or counterpoints based on your crossfire in the subsequent parts of the round.

As a coach, I will usually be pretty familiar with both sides of the resolution.  If a card sounds suspect, I will call for it.  

Congress:

I rank mediocre extemp speeches above good pre-written speeches. Your mother, coach, or teammate could've written that speech and you simply reading it is just not impressive.

If you waste everyone's time by asking a "friendly question" I will be ranking you in my bottom half.

Each speech should further the debate in some way. Add to pre-existing arguments or make new ones. Respond to others in the chamber. Don't just argue the same exact thing as said before.

Sources MUST be cited. If you are clearly referencing something, but not giving author and year, I will assume you used ChatGPT and rank you at the bottom.

PF:

Do your own evidence weighing. I will not call for a card unless you tell me to call for a card. A reason for you to tell me to call for a card is because of poor evidence ethics, NOT to weigh it or evaluate it versus yours. You should do that in round. If evidence says conflicting things, you should be doing the proper weighing and indicts. Otherwise I will count the entire thing a wash.

You should collapse in some way, preferably in summary. If you are going for everything on the flow in the final focus, you are undercovering something. Either you are not extending something properly or you are not weighing comparatively. It is much better for education and debate in general to engage in clash qualitatively. Debate evidence. Debate warrants. Actually collapse and interact instead of just half extending a bunch of blippy responses. Messy debates are so prevalent in PF and most of the time it is created because everyone tries to go for everything.

Everything you extend in FF should be carried through every speech. If it is not in summary, I will not flow it through. This includes defense (I do not believe defense is sticky). Other than frontlines, no new arguments and evidence should be introduce in summary/FF. A proper extension includes all aspects of the argument. This includes claim, warrant, and impact (hint: "extend my contention one" is not enough). Most extensions I witness are just little blips. I value quality over quantity. This is why you should collapse.

Weighing is a must. There is virtually a zero percent chance I vote for you if you do not weigh (unless the other team also doesn't weigh). Weighing should be comparative to your opponents impact. I will award you higher speaks if you even meta-weigh (such as why our weighing mechanism of magnitude outweighs their weighing mechanism of irreversibility). Properly weighing like this means you must attribute time to it, not just the fleeting few seconds at the end (AKA collapse).

Turns must be implicated. Most debaters think that a turn automatically means you get your opponents offense. A lot of turns are just disadvantages to the pro/con and most times this disadvantage does not negate the offense from the other team. For instance, let's say Team A argues in case that the resolution will create more jobs and Team B reads a "turn" that it would increase cost of goods and services. Team B has just introduced a disadvantage to Team A's argument, but has not negated their offense or even somehow stolen their offense for themselves (unless other arguments were presented in conjunction with this). In this case, both teams have offense on this side of the flow- Team A in jobs and Team B in costs. So the turn itself should be implicated and weighed in the round to be evaluated. If you read a turn that says it actually decreases jobs, again, impact it out and implicate it. You also probably need to do some evidence analysis or warrant comparisons.

One of my biggest pet peeves in debate is when one team claims their opponent did not respond to something and then I'll look down on my flow and see a bunch of responses. If they actually didn't respond, call them out on it, but please keep a good flow so you can call it out accurately.

I presume keeping the status squo (con). If everything is a wash or muddled to the point where it is nearly impossible to evaluate, that will be my vote. This rarely happens though.

Speed- on a 1-10 I would say around a 6 for me. So no spreading. If you go fast through numbers or quick analytics I will probably miss some of it. Go slower for taglines as well.

Speaker points- I don't care about eye contact. I don't care if you sway, twirl your hair, or even sit while speaking. I'd say there are three factors I consider when giving speaks. 1st is how well you deliver. Can I understand it? Do you mumble? Is it clear? Etc. 2nd is your ability to navigate me around the flow. Are you signposting? Do you bounce me around the flow? etc. 3rd is are you making strategic choices in round? Are you actually weighing comparatively? Are you collapsing? Are you actually engaging in evidence and clash or do you just give a thousand blippy responses and create a messy debate? etc

I don't flow cross and view it as non-binding inside of itself. It can be binding but it needs to be brought up in speech. I'm usually writing ballot comments or evaluating a flow during cross but will still pay attention. If you get a key concession or something, you need to bring it up in speech.

K's and theory are becoming more and more of a prevalent thing in PF. I am generally not a fan. I don't understand what we want Public Forum to become with this. I think we are straying away from what Public Forum is supposed to be, which is an accessible form of debate for the public. I understand that debate is a game and will try to evaluate the flow as such, but I am a more of a traditionalist when it comes to argumentation being run in PF and prefer it to just stay on topic.

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 flow rounds. Alerting me to clear contentions and off time road maps assists me in completing my flows. I am absolutely not capable of flowing if you SPREAD, in fact, if you choose to SPREAD, I will stop flowing and listen. I prefer to hear you present your arguments verses reading your prepared material. The documents will provide me the name of your source when I review before making a final decision. I favor up to date resources as changes happen daily, when presenting your argument I focus on the year of the evidence to include in my flow. Cross fires should be civil. I generally look to typical speech characteristics when determining speaker points, such as speaking with clarity and articulation. I also consider the general characteristics of giving a speech such as how you present yourself through your demeanor both individually and as a team, as well as with your opponents.

I have a theatre background but have been coaching and judging on and off for over 20+ years. I want to hear what you are saying and feel what you are trying to convey. I expect professionalism and courtesy in the round and out of the round. I don't appreciate spreading, I want to see a debate not a race. I love innovation in ideas and I appreciate pushing the boundaries. BUT, I admire old school standards. I probably won't smile but that doesn't mean that I don't like what you are doing. (I am concentrating trying to find constructive criticisms.) I can multitask, so don't think because I am writing that I am not watching. I don't prefer to disclose.

Email: caitlynajones1@gmail.com

Pronouns: (she/her)

I have done no topic research, so you should assume know basically nothing beyond what UNCLOS is.

Did mostly PF in high school + a year of LD. I've judged and coached both.

Argument-Specific Stuff

In general, I'm better at evaluating more traditional LD rounds, but some progressive stuff is fine if it's well done and you send a speech doc. Standard Value, Value Criterion, Disad, and Stock stuff are comfortably in my wheelhouse. If you want to run super progressive stuff, you need to check in with your opponent before the round and see if they are comfortable with progressive debate. Debate is inaccessible enough as it is, and I'm not going to penalize someone for not knowing how to engage with some blippy progressive stuff they don't see a lot on their home circuit.

If you read positions that don't make sense, expect a decision you won't like. I'm open to Kritiks, but super absurd/outlandish positions like "Death-Good" are not going to yield the result you want from me. I'm always going to be more persuaded to evaluate Kritiks that are related to the resolution as opposed to Ks with no link. This should go without saying, but if your alt doesn't actually have any solvency, you're better off just reading a stock case in front of me. Calling a problem to my attention is useless if you have no solution, and I'm not going to do mental gymnastics to find solvency in your K.

I'm not a fan of role of the ballot stuff. You're probably not going to convince me that voting a certain way will have any effect on policymaking and/or the debate community at large.

I'm a believer in the importance of the framework debate in LD. If you guys don't agree on the framework and no one does a good enough job convincing me why I should use theirs to evaluate the round, that makes my job a lot harder.

Full disclosure, I'm not that experienced in evaluating theory. I'm open to it, but I need you to provide a good doc so that I can follow along myself.

General Round Stuff

1. Concessions in cross need to be in a speech for me to flow and evaluate it.

2. I don't flow anything after the 10-second grace period.

3. Rudeness will get your speaker points docked. Please be respectful.

4. Running unethical arguments that make the debate space unsafe for other competitors will get you dropped. I have zero tolerance for bigoted/discriminatory arguments.

5. Some speed is fine, but spreading to the point where I can't understand anything you're saying is inadvisable. IF you choose to spread anyway, I need a speech doc and the marked doc when your speech is over.

6. Polite and respectful questions about my decision/my thoughts on the round are totally fine and encouraged. Aggressive post-rounding is not. If you insist on rudely post-rounding anyway, please remember that it won'tmake me change my decision but itwill make me go to tab to dock your speaker points.

John Koo

Debate experience: I did 4 years of LD and Congress in high school (Montgomery Academy)

PF: I know exactly what this debate format is so you don't have to worry that I was mostly an LDer.

Most important thing: be civil. Especially in CX, I know you want to ask and answer, but unless your opponent is simply wasting time, be respectful.

Evidence: Evidence is really key. If you have a lot of cards in your case, please organize them in the proper format and citations. If your opponents or I want to see them, please have them readily available for checking. Unfairly cut or misused cards will immediately be thrown away along with the round.

Signpost: Guide me through the flow. I don't want to search my way through my flow to find what you're talking about. It's more beneficial for you to tell me exactly where to look and what to write, so I have more time to think and analyze what you're saying.

LD:

I like a pretty balanced framework debate. That does not mean you simply focus on your values and never tell me why they are important. Show me direct relations of your criterion to your value, and why your contentions reflect those values. I'm pretty knowledgeable about philosophy and any value that you may use, but if you're doing something unorthodox, remember to explain it well to me.

I think structure is extremely important to debate. Yes getting all the information out is good, but be organized with it.

So:

Signpost. Especially in your 2ARs/1NRs, go down the flow. Tell me where I am supposed to be looking at. Although the same topic, every debate round is different. Tell me where exactly your argument works. Tell me where your opponent's argument doesn't work. I will only judge what you say in the round. I don't assume anything.

Speed. From years of debate on many different levels, I have learned to handle any type of speed. However, always keep in mind that I may miss something you say if you go extremely fast or are unclear. I know especially in those 2ARs there is a lot of information you want to tell me, but please try to be calm and collected.

Arguments. I know CPs, Ks, DisAds, Theories, etc... Thoroughly explain to me why something or your opponent is abusive if you believe that. Although I always leave my personal beliefs out of judging, I am going to try and protect those from a very abusive CP. I will be somewhat biased there when I can see a clear misuse.

Overall, ask if you have any other questions or preferences you want to know. Please be respectful to your opponent. That is the most important thing, and have a good debate round.

Experience-

Lay parent judge. Judged for three years at local tournaments.

Speed-

I’d prefer that you don’t spread. If thats your style, then go for it but if I don’t get something in the case its on you. Also, slow down for tag lines and author names if possible.

Framing-

Its probably best if your framing is something consequentialist. You can go for philosophical args or narrow frameworks but it needs to be explained more. On framework weighing, I like for there to be offensive reasons to prefer the framework rather than just giving defense to the other persons and saying yours is “moral.” Depending on the framework, you should probably give an explanation of which arguments can and cant be evaluated under it or you’re just going to be wasting your time. Show what arguments weigh the most under the framework and which cant be evaluated.

Casing-

I need some way to weigh between impacts. Tell me how to evaluate the round or I just have two contentions that have no clear winner. Clear voters at the end are also insanely nice and help on weighing between args.

Incase you feel the need to run circuit args-

T- Ill buy it if the aff has some extreme interp of the resolution. It really is more of a reasonability thing, though. If its a traditional round, it doesn’t need to be in shell format.

theory- It needs to be actual abuse to warrant theory. Much of the stuff on T is the same here.

DA- yea, sure. Im more of truth over tech. This doesn’t mean you cant go for nuke args, especially since this topic links to them pretty easily, but it does mean there should be work done on the link.

CP- go for it. There needs to be a net benefit though.

K- probably not the best thing to go for unless its cap. The link and alt need to be extremely clear.

Speaks-

I average between 27-30. A 29 is an expectation that you’ll break and a 30 means it was probably the best round I judged. Anything significantly lower than a 27 means you probably did something immoral (ie. arguing racism good).

Jokes can boost speaks. Especially if you’re in a round you feel is not winnable, you can still make it fun.

I debated in Public Forum debate (2013-2017) at Western Highschool in Florida.

I have a Bachelor's degree in Political Science from the University of Florida and a Master's degree in Liberal Studies from Georgetown University. Attending Northeastern University Law School in the fall.

a couple of things:

-Y'all should be timing the debate. I am the judge, not a babysitter. I like when teams hold each other accountable.

- don't read a new contention in rebuttal. that's not going on my flow

- The first summary should extend defense if the second rebuttal frontlines the argument. I think it is strategic for the second rebuttal to respond to turns and overviews.

- My attention to crossfire will probably depend on the time of day and my current mood. Please use it strategically if not I'll probably switch to watching youtube videos. - do not just read evidence explain the evidence in your own words. Tell me why the evidence matters to me at the end of the day.

- the summary is cool and all but don't go for everything on the flow, condense the round and give me a narrative. Quality of voters> Quantity of voters.

- Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh.

-any other questions ask me before the round

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

"30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior."

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

if you want to learn more about debate and get better under my guidance.

Click on the link below and sign up now!!!!

https://vancouverdebate.ca/intrinsic-debate-institute-summer-camp-2022/

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).

I have judged infrequently for the last few years, so I may not be up on the latest trends in progressive arguments, but I understand debate and I flow.

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 really don't want to judge theory debates. If you are checking back against a truly abusive practice, I will listen to and evaluate the argument, but theory is not my forte and I generally feel that fairness and educational value are going to lean toward having a debate that is topical to the resolution. 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.

Tl;dr: Please debate the resolution. It will make me happy.

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.

I am okay with any speed.

Speak your contention very clearly at the beginning of your points, I prefer off time roadmaps.

Time yourself and tell me loudly when you are starting.

Keep your own prep time, inform me that you are taking prep and tell me how much time was taken after.

Know all the speech times so we can avoid confusions and get through the round fast.

If a coin flip is required, the debaters will flip and decide and inform me after which side they are on and speaking order.

No preference on desk arrangement or how CX is done.

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

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

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

- off-time roadmaps are helpful

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

- prefer you keep your own times