I am a senior at the University of Alabama studying argumentation. I have participated in several debates this semester. Along with this, I have flowed the debates of my peers. I will be flowing your debates to the best of my ability. I suggest speaking at a rate no quicker than a slightly above average cadence. Anything above that puts me at risk of missing key points you say. If you are speaking too fast, I will raise my hand once to signal you to slow down.

When I enter the debate room, I am going in with a clear slate. My personal beliefs and opinions will not have an impact on the outcome of the debate. I will judge based on what is said and the evidence provided. I will use the lessons taught in my class to determine if an argument is strong or weak. Make sure you to make your impacts clear and to prioritize impact comparison.

I do have the ability to call for evidence at the end of the round. I will only do so if the evidence is central to the debate and the opposing team urges me to view it. If you can not provide the evidence when requested, I will strike it from my flow.

Alright cool so I debated Public Forum for two years and so I'm pretty well equipped to deal with anything you throw at me.

Don't worry about your speed, this is Public Forum and you shouldn't be spreading anyway.

I'll judge you strictly off the flow but do keep in mind that unprofessional behavior (getting very aggressive in cross, laughing at your opponent) will deduct from your speaker points.

If nothing else is offered, I resort to a cost-benefit analysis framework in order to accurately judge the round.

Finally, you'll get bonus points for puns or clever contention tags and please remember that this isn't meant to be incredibly stressful (I've been there, it sucks) and that you should be having a good amount of fun.

For email chains: danbagwell@gmail.com

I was a Policy debater at Samford / GTA at Wake Forest, now an assistant coach at Mountain Brook. I’ve increasingly moved into judging PF and LD, which I enjoy the most when they don’t imitate Policy.

I’m open to most arguments in each event - feel free to read your theory, critiques, counterplans, etc., as long as they’re clearly developed and impacted. Debate is up to the debaters; I'm not here to impose my preferences on the round.

All events

• Speed is fine as long as you’re clear. Pay attention to nonverbals; you’ll know if I can’t understand you.

• Bad arguments still need answers, but dropped args are not auto-winners – you still need to extend warrants and explain why they matter.

• If prep time isn’t running, all activity by all debaters should stop.

• Debate should be fun - be nice to each other. Don’t be rude or talk over your partner.

Public Forum

• I’m pretty strongly opposed to paraphrasing evidence - I’d prefer that debaters directly read their cards, which should be readily available for opponents to see. That said, I won’t just go rogue and vote on it - it’s still up to debaters to give convincing reasons why that’s either a voting issue or a reason to reject the paraphrased evidence. Like everything else, it’s up for debate.

• Please exchange your speech docs, either through an email chain or flash drive. Efficiency matters, and I’d rather not sit through endless prep timeouts for viewing cards.

• Extend warrants, not just taglines. It’s better to collapse down to 1-2 well-developed arguments than to breeze through 10 blippy ones.

• Anything in the Final Focus should be in the Summary – stay focused on your key args.

• Too few teams debate about evidence/qualifications – that’s a good way to boost speaks and set your sources apart.

Lincoln-Douglas

• I think LD is too often a rush to imitate Policy, which results in some messy debates. Don’t change your style because of my background – if you’re not comfortable (or well-practiced) spreading 5 off-case args, then that’s not advisable.

• If your value criterion takes 2+ minutes to read, please link the substance of your case back to it. This seems to be the most under-developed part of most LD rounds.

• Theory is fine when clearly explained and consistently extended, but I’m not a fan of debaters throwing out a ton of quick voters in search of a cheap shot. Things like RVIs are tough enough to win in the first place, so you should be prepared to commit sufficient time if you want theory to be an option.

Policy

[Quick note: I've been out of practice in judging Policy for a bit, so don't take for granted my knowledge of topic jargon or ability to catch every arg at top-speed - I've definitely become a curmudgeon about clarity.]

Counterplans/theory:

• I generally think limited condo (2 positions) is okay, but I've become a bit wary on multiple contradictory positions.

• Theory means reject the arg most of the time (besides condo).

• I often find “Perm- do the CP” persuasive against consult, process, or certainty-based CPs. I don’t love CPs that result in the entire aff, but I’ll vote on them if I have to.

• Neg- tell me how I should evaluate the CP and disad. Think judge kick is true? Say it. It’s probably much better for you if I’m not left to decide this on my own.

Kritiks:

• K affs that are at least somewhat linked to the resolutional controversy will fare the best in front of me. That doesn't mean that you always need a plan text, but it does mean that I most enjoy affirmatives that defend something in the direction of the topic.

• For Ks in general: the more specific, the better - nuanced link debates will go much farther than 100 different ways to say "state bad".

• Framework args on the aff are usually just reasons to let the aff weigh their impacts.

Topicality:

• Caselists, plz.

• No preference toward reasonability or competing interps - just go in depth instead of repeating phrases like "race to the bottom" and moving on.

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.  

SOOOOOOO TRAD.

State Update: I'm sick, please don't get mad at me for coughing and sneezing.

Vestavia Hills High School '18

Auburn University '22

Email Chain: joeycompton17@gmail.com

Judge Philosophy: I feel like my job as a judge is to be as objective as possible and evaluate the round solely on the merits of the arguments presented.

General Debate Predilections/Requests That You'll Inevitably Ignore:

-I like debates about the topic. The stupider your interp is, the more annoyed I get.

-Tech over truth. Notwithstanding, if your "technical concession" took two seconds it probably doesn't matter.

-I really, really enjoy impact turn debates. They will be rewarded with higher speaks if done correctly.

-I hate, hate, hate long overviews. Just do it on the line by line.

-I care a lot about evidence. More on that below.

-You don't have to shake my hand, lol.

PF:

-You can have a framework debate if you want. I really don't care. That being said, if it's useless, your speaks will go down. Strategy, and using your time wisely, is key. Also, I need effective warrant analysis to evaluate voters under the framework - so, please do that.

-I don't care about speed. If you are *actually* going to spread, I'm cool with an email chain (email is below). If you are incomprehensible, I'll yell "clear" twice. After that, I'm done.

-I don't care whether you read the card straight up or summarize. But keep in mind, if you get called out for miscutting, I will call for the card at the end of the round. If I find you have grossly misrepresented the evidence, I'll probs drop you. It's up to you. I used to summarize, and it helped with the flow of the case, but if you want to play it safe, just read the card.

-I like effective warrant analysis. I will be sad if you don't do this. If you want to concede links for strategic purposes, I'm completely fine with it, just make sure you do it in the immediate speech from which the turn was read.

-I don't flow crossfire, but I really enjoy it. Ask strategic, nuanced questions and you will potentially be rewarded with higher speaks. Don't make arguments - that's for your speeches. Don't be rude.

-I think it's advantageous for the second-speaking team (2) to cover the first-speaking team's (1) offense on Team 2's case. It won't hurt your chances at winning my ballot and I won't require it, but it could potentially hurt your speaks. I like this because it makes for a cleaner summary and somewhat evens the playing field between Team 1 and Team 2.

-I hope you have your evidence! I used to call for a lot of cards, and I think it's cool when debaters actually try to directly interact with the evidence. As soon as you receive the evidence, I'll start prep. After a significant portion of time, if a team can't find a card or evidence, I will just start your prep until you concede the argument. You should have your evidence - no excuses. If a team or debater asks me to call for a card, I'll look at it after the round. I also reserve the right to call for cards even if I am not prompted to. I often do this if I'm making my decision off of one or two pieces of evidence. If I call for a card, I will never insert argument into the debate based on what the evidence implies, but I do reserve the right to drop you if it is miscut or you misread/misinterpreted it.

-As of recent, I've gotten really tired of keeping time. I've decided the best way to deal with this, as a judge, is to give lower speaks to teams who irresponsibly keep time. It's not that hard and it bothers me a lot. C'mon.

-Strategy, competitiveness, and good crystallization will get you good speaks. +.5 if you say Kanye lyrics, exclaim "War Eagle," or say a funny joke/pun during the round. Both teams can do it. UPDATE: Quite a good bit of debaters have been saying "War Eagle" to me. That's great and all, but the sentence above says "during the round" - thus, it should be in a speech.

-Rudeness, offensive behavior, wasted time/inefficiency, etc. will give you low speaks.

-I'm good with progressive args. I like disad-esque arguments with solid links. If you think it's necessary to run theory, please run it in shell form. I've never been too high on K debate. I'll vote on them, but I'm unfamiliar with most of the literature. I never really ran these when I debated, but if you feel as if you can explain it well, go for it. Don't pref me too high if this is what you do - I wouldn't be able to give you due diligence. It's not you, it's me.

-I'm more tech over truth. I'm willing to vote on a bad argument if it is won on the flow. I'm going to hate myself for doing it, but as much as I dislike dumb arguments, I dislike arbitrary judge intervention more.

-Meme cases? I'm listening. Don't throw away the round and run these if you can break, though. I don't want to take this opportunity away from you like John Scanlon did with me. You probably won't win, but it'll be fun.

-No matter your record, keep your head up and your mind open. Every tournament, and every round, is a learning experience. Don't let your record define you. Have fun with it, and don't be afraid to come talk to me before/after the round or over email if you have any questions.

-Email: joeycompton17@gmail.com.

LD:

-I'm open to really anything in a round, and I'm generally familiar with most styles of argumentation. I've only judged one LD tournament this year, so, depending on how good you are, I may be a tad rusty.

-I feel like my job as a judge is to be as objective as possible and evaluate the round solely on the merits of the arguments presented. I will vote on anything as long as it is: A) clearly explained, B) well defended, and C) weighed against other arguments. Basically: you do you.

-I'll vote on less-than-stellar args like NIBs or frivolous theory. You can definitely pick up my ballot if you do that, but I probably won't give you good speaks. As much as I dislike dumb arguments, I dislike arbitrary judge intervention more.

-Speed is fine, slow down for tags and authors, though. If you're going too fast, I'll yell "clear" twice. After that, I'm done. Keep in mind, if I can't understand you, I can't vote for you.

-I may call for cards after the round if need be.

-I won't flow cross but make it enjoyable - I was a huge cross guy. Make sure you're asking strategic questions. I don't want to be bored.

-I'm fine with progressive strategies such as Theory, DAs, T, etc.

-I'll vote on disclosure theory but your speaks will reflect how upset I am about voting on it.

-If you're gonna have an email chain, add me to it.

-Adding stuff to a speech doc counts as prep, but the physical act of emailing or giving a flash-drive to your opponent does not.

-I'm usually glued to my flow during the round, so if I'm not looking at you don't panic.

-Don't pref me high if you're a K debater. I'm unfamiliar with most of the literature and never really ran these when I debated. I wouldn't be able to give you due diligence. It's not you, it's me.

-Speaks: I'll dock points if you're obscenely rude or do cheap/tricky args. If you say a funny joke, drop some Kanye lyrics, or exclaim "War Eagle" during the round or cross I'll add .5 points to your speaks - both debaters can do it.

-Email me before the round (or after idc) if you have any questions: joeycompton17@gmail.com

....

Things I default to (not my preferences, just what I'll default to if you fail to address the issue).

-Competing interps

-No RVIs

-Drop the arg

-The resolution is a statement that is to be proven true by the Aff

-Theory comes before Ks and T

-Fairness / education are theoretically legitimate reasons to exclude certain practices

Big Questions Preferences:

Lol.

I am a student at the University of Alabama studying argumentation. I have spent the semester debating and practicing flow. I will be flowing this round to the best of my ability.

My knowledge on the topic will not have an effect on the outcome of the debate. My job is to determine which arguments are strong or weak, regardless of if I agree or disagree.

I want the impacts to be clear. Prioritize impact comparison because this will allow one side over the other. In our debates, we weigh whether an action should or should not be taken.

I will not call for evidence unless requested by the opposing team. I will also only do so if the evidence is crucial for my determining reason on who wins the round. If you cannot provide proof of evidence upon request - I will strike that particular point from my flow.

Slow down and allow me to flow. I can flow on all terms, but to allow yourself a greater chance - I suggest you not to go too fast. If you go too fast, I will raise my hand to notify you to slow down.

Be respectful of one another. I look forward to judging your round.

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: 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 student at The University of Alabama, currently enrolled in an argumentation course. I have participated in several debates throughout the semester and have also flowed when I wasn't a part of the debate. I took a critical decision making course last semester where I practiced the same skills. I will be flowing the round to the best of my ability.

I will enter the round as a blank slate and will be judging based solely on what you tell me, not what I believe to be true. My personal knowledge and beliefs will have no bearing on the decisions I make.

In the practice I have had with debates and flowing, we weigh impacts to determine whether an action should be taken. Make your impacts clear and prioritize impact comparison in your debates.

As far as evidence goes, I will not call for it unless the other team requests it or the evidence was central to my final decision. If a team cannot provide proof of evidence upon request, I will strike that point from my flow.

Concerning speed, I know what I am doing in terms of flowing, but if you go too fast, I will not be able to keep up. If you are going too fast for me to be able to follow, I will hold my hands up as a cue for you to slow down. I am more apt to decide on arguments that are explained to me, so don't skimp on your analysis in favor of covering more points.

I am happy to discuss my flow post-debate after my ballot has been turned in.

I am a college student at the University of Alabama currently studying argumentation. I have spent this past semester debating several times in class and practicing how to properly flow a debate. I will be flowing this round to the best of my ability.

I am a blank slate and will have no personal opinions in mind when entering the debate. My personal knowledge or beliefs will have no impact on the decisions I make.

In our debates, we weigh impacts to determine whether an action should or should not be taken. For this reason, make your impacts clear and be sure to prioritize impact comparison.

In regard to evidence, I will not call for evidence unless both: 1- opposing team request to examine the evidence in round and 2- the evidence in question is central to my reason for decision in who won the round. If a student cannot produce a piece of evidence used in round, I will strike the evidence from my flow.

Most importantly, in order to adequately flow the debate, it would be beneficial to both teams to go slowly or at least at a moderate speed while debating. If a debater is going too fast or their delivery isn't clear, I will give verbal or visual clues that I can not properly flow what they are saying. For instance, I will yell “clear” or hold up my hand, to offer a student the chance to clear up their delivery. Keep in mind, I will only do this once per student.

I am a speech and debate coach as well as a high school history teacher. I have no preferences in round, but I do expect each side to be respectful. Speak and debate your hearts out, but leave it in round. Congratulate each other on a great round. I will follow you as you present your argument. Mess up? Don't stop, keep going.

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/

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

Experience: 2004 - Present - Speech and Debate director for Spain Park High School, Birmingham, AL

Events I Enjoy Coaching and Judging: Public Forum / Limited Lincoln Douglas / Most IE events

Major Concerns: If I call for a card and determine it is mis-cut, I will immediately drop your team. I will also report the violation to the tournament director and your coach or sponsor. All evidence should have a clearly defined DATE, author, and credentials. Sourcing on your card should be clear and wording of the text should not be altered. I should be quickly able to determine the veracity of the information presented in the round.

How I weigh PF: Standards should be clearly established. I find a framework at the top of the case useful. Please make an effort to argue your framework/standard. I will weigh all arguments based on the winning standard. Clearly compare both sides of the argument and explain why your side outweighs based on clear links to the framework. Deliver clear voters in the Final Focus. Usually, I only consider arguments cleanly extended through summary and final focus.

Kritiks/Counterplans/Theory in PF: Different tournaments have different rules on these matters. I will abide by the rules or philosophy in the tournament handbook. Public Forum should be accessible to a general audience. Please make certain that your arguments are comprehensible. If you feel like your opponent is running an argument which is unfair or against the rules, be prepared to define the violation and explain why to discount the argument in your rebuttal, summary, and final focus. If you are running these types of arguments, be prepared to establish why you are departing from the norms. Your rationale should be clear so that your opponent can adequately address your points.

Crossfire: Do not talk over your opponent. Follow up questions can be useful, but be courteous to your opponents' need to question you. Discourtesy will result in deducted speaker points.

Speaker Points: Your level of courtesy is my primary concern here. Be self-aware of your demeanor. Enunciate. Signpost your arguments/rebuttals. Each speech should have evidence of organization. Use all your time.

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

Purpose: I will be judging the debates and determine who gave a better argument based on the performance given. I will not judge arguments using my personal beliefs or prior knowledge to make a biased decision. I will need you to speak slowly and treat your opponents with respect. I will not listen to any arguments made after the time is complete.

Experience: I am a college student at the University of Alabama and am studying COM 348 (Argumentation). In class we have gone over the language, done debates of our own and flowed our peers. I will be flowing debates today to the best of my ability.

Voting: In class we judge debates on the impact to determine whether action should be taken or not. With that being said, please make your impacts clear and easy to understand. Prioritize impact comparison!

Evaluating Evidence: Unless asked by a team to call for evidence, I will not do so.

Speed: Be sure to speak slowly and clearly. If teams speak too fast so that I am not able to flow, I will stop taking notes. I will warn you only once if you speak too fast by saying "clear," and if you do not slow down I cannot take notes.

Experience

Mountain Brook High School Speech and Debate Coach (2018 - Present)

Wheaton North High School Speech (2003-2007)

Wheaton North Public Forum Debater (2006)

As a judge, I want to see debaters that are:

Focused and Organized: The more thoughtful you are about how you present your contentions initially, the easier it for me to judge and for your opponents to interact with your case. Evidence should be succinct and questions during cross should be thoughtful and targeted. A PF round goes incredibly quickly, and it's important that you use each second to your advantage. In particular I appreciate when debaters weigh and discuss impact throughout the round. By the end I want to be sold on why your contentions are stronger and your impacts are more significant. Remember that as I judge I may not have seen all of the evidence that you have, and in Public Forum it is your job to talk to me as if I know nothing about the topic, even if I do.

Prepared: Nothing hurts the quality of a debate more than debaters who do not fully understand the resolution or their opponents’ claims. Good clash can only be built through understanding all facets of the resolution and the evidence available. That being said, citing a piece of evidence is never a substitution for a strong warrant. If you cannot explain your evidence and connect it logically to your argument, then I am less likely to consider it when judging. I do not like calling for evidence. It usually means that you have stopped debating the topic and started debating cards that I have not read.

Professional: Professionalism will not lose you a round with me, but it will absolutely impact the speaker points I award. Being confident and convincing me that you have won your debate is expected. Being rude, disrespectful, or condescending to the judge, your opponents, or your partner is never acceptable. Debate is an enormous undertaking, and every person’s time and commitment should be respected. It is also incredibly difficult to know what your opponents are saying if you do not give them their time to talk, or when you are overly focused on your own case.

I debated LD for Vestavia for 3 years and PF for 1 year. I did debate on the national circuit, so I can handle speed, theories, and other off-cases. I do not like K's so I will not vote on them. I'll let you know if you need to slow down by saying clear. I love a good framework and standards debate, so I'd generally prefer that it be the focal point. Clear extensions and turns are of course preferred. I also dislike "squirrelly" arguments, so that's another topic that I largely will not vote on. Other than that, I've had 4 years of judging experience and I have judged at Nationals. 

I'm an assistant PF coach at Charlotte Latin and a graduate student at the University of Alabama. My email is dmzell@crimson.ua.edu

Strake RR Paradigm

1. Anything on the ballot must be in final focus, and anything besides weighing in final focus must be in summary.

2. Please weigh. Tell me why your argument justifies a vote for you even if your opponent’s arguments are true.

3. I'm generally sympathetic to the first speaking team. Defense is not necessary in first summary, and new evidence should not be in the second. While you don't have to frontline everything, the second rebuttal needs to answer all offense.

4. If you are going to concede your opponent’s argument, it must be in the speech immediately after it was made.

5. Please be respectful. Avoid overly-aggressive crossfires and rudeness.

6. Evidence ethics matter a great deal to me. I don't care if it’s called for or contested, I will not vote on a miscut card. Lying about evidence is too easy and too common in this activity, and I have decided that intervening is worth it to stop cheating. If a card sounds sketchy to me, I will call for it, and if the card is severely miscut, drop the team. Please know that I understand evidence mixups can happen, as well as the "power tagging effect", where a card gets a bit exaggerated as the round progresses. There's a difference between that and fabricating, clipping, or grossly misrepresenting your evidence. The former might cause me to lower speaks, but the latter will be an L 20.

In General

I am a fan of speed and tech debate, but I'm out of practice--particularly with flowing. Just keep in mind that the faster you go the more likely it is I miss something. If you want to spread, try to reduce the risk of this by slowing down for key parts of arguments/cards and signposting well.

I will listen to pretty much any argument, but I may not know what to do with it. If you're going to make progressive arguments, make sure you're clear on how you want it evaluated and why.

Tech > Truth in the sense that dropped argument are true ones

Truth > Tech in the sense that I'm more than happy to listen to uncarded analysis if it's good.

If neither team has offense at the end of the round, I'll presume for the first speaking team, not neg. The structure of PF makes such an outcome much easier for the second speaking team to avoid.