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.

Jefferson State Community College: Speech and Debate Team - 2 years

LD Judge: 4 years

Speed: I am good with any speed as long as you are not spreading. If I cannot follow I will say "Clear" at which point I expect that you slow down, so I can flow the round properly.

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.

Coaching Experience: None

Background: I have been taking a debate/argumentation class since the start of January, 2019. I am currently a senior, graduating in May from The University of Alabama in Communication Studies. I believe that debate is a great way to convey your ideas and persuade others, by making analytical arguments. I am not concerned with delivery of argument, as long as it is analytical, insightful, and creative. Speaker points will be awarded for presenting a clarity, strategic decision making in the round, and showing clear comparisons for how one side should be preferred. I flow fairly slow, but if I cannot hear you or understand I will interject once with “clear.” I am more apt to decide on arguments throughly explained, so think quality not quantity.

Preferences:

1. Evidence: Evidence must be clearly cited and accessible during the round. I expect you to be able to show me what you showed your opponents during the round if a card is called.

2. Consistency: Consistency from start to finish, picking main points to highlight in the final speech is critical. This means defending main points in your argument and summarizing why it should be decided upon.

New judge.

Prefer speaking speed 4-5

Respect to your opponent.

My experience with debate started in middle school and extended through college. I started debating in the 5th grade for WJ Christian Elementary School and won city championships in 7th and 8th grades. I debated in the LD and NFL formats for Huffman High School for 4 years winning the State Championship as a novice and then two State Championships in NFL debate as a sophomore and junior and then a State Championship in LD Debate as a senior. I won the Deep South District Debate tournament in NFL Debate as a sophomore and junior and in LD as a senior. I attended the National Debate tournament in NFL/Policy Debate as a sophomore and junior and then in LD Debate as a senior. I attended Samford University on debate scholarship and made it to the semifinals as a freshman at the College National Debate Tournament. Debate has shaped my life in many ways. I attended medical school at UAB after college and did all of my additional medical training at UAB. I have practiced medical oncology/hematology for the last 18 years at the Montgomery Cancer Center in Montgomery, Alabama. I still value greatly the skills I attained from debate as I communicate with patients daily regarding life and death issues. I take very seriously the appropriate adjudication of the debates I am asked to judge.

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

LD Paradigms:

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

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

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

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!

Experience:

Mountain Brook High School Debate (2003-2007)

Mountain Brook Lincoln/Douglass & Policy Debater (2003-2006)

Mountain Brook Public Forum Debater (2006-2007)

As a judge, I want to see debaters that:

Collapse: No one wants to evaluate 100 different arguments at the end of the round. In your closing, pick the arguments that carry the most weight and tell me why you won them.

Weigh Arguments: Tell me what arguments matter the most and why they do. Do this early, and do this often.

Speak Clearly: I don't have a hard limit on speed, but this isn't Policy. If I can't follow, I will say the word "clear" to help you get to where I can flow your round properly. I will not deduct points for calling out "clear," but if I can't follow your argument that can obviously have an impact on the ballot.

Signpost: Before time starts, give us an idea of where you'll be going during your argument. It doesn't have to be all-encompassing or set in stone, but a general idea is very helpful.

Show Respect: Be respectful, not only to me but to your opponent as well. This begins before the first argument goes out, we're here to develop and enjoy ourselves- don't ruin it by being hateful.

Miscellaneous:

Dates: Dates matter with evidence. The first time you use a piece of evidence, drop the date in there for everyone's benefit. If your opponent uses a piece of evidence and doesn't say the date, don't be afraid to ask for it.

Prepare: Be prepared and ready to go. Use the bathroom, preflow, and do whatever else you need to before I get there!

CX: I'm willing to go a little over time in order to allow for an answer. For example: If Aff asks Neg a question with 3 seconds left, I'll allow Neg to give an answer before we call it.

Kritik/Counterplan/Theory: Please do it well if you are going to run it. It is always uncomfortable when someone runs a shell argument that they don't really understand and then falls apart halfway through!

If you need me to clarify any of these paradigms and preferences, or you have a question that I have not addressed, please ask; I want you to know what to expect and feel comfortable going into the round!

Any Questions, feel free to email me- Hayslip@gmail.com

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.

General

I am ok with aggressive debates as long as everyone is respectful

I do not like abusive arguments however

Speed

I would prefer a slower debate, allows for better arguments. Please do not spread

Framework

I judge heavily on the framework of the debate but if the value or criterion is complex make sure to explain it to me. I do not like theory

Time

I keep time during debates and I do not allow for flex prep

Please Signpost

Please clearly state voters at the end of your argument

Updated for 2024-25 Season

Please put me on the speech thread! Thank you.

Email: thelquinn@gmail.com

Meta-thoughts:

Debate is a game we play on the weekend with friends. The true values of debate are the skills and connections gained.

I’m not the smartest human. You’re maybe/likely smarter than me. Please do not assume I know anything you are talking about. And I would honestly love to learn some new things in a debate about arguments you researched.

Debaters are guilty until proven innocent of clipping cards. I follow along in speech docs. I believe it is judges job to police clipping and it is unfair to make debaters alone check it. I will likely say clear though, it's nothing personal.

I keep a running clock and "read along" with speech docs to prevent clipping. At the end of the round, I find myself most comfortable voting for a team that has the best synthesis between good ethos, good tech/execution, and good evidence. I will not vote on better evidence if the other team out debates you, but I assign a heavy emphasis on quality evidence when evaluating competing arguments, especially offensive positions.

Education/Debate Background:

Wake Forest University: 2011-2015. Top Speaker at ADA Nationals my Junior Year. 2x NDT First-Round Bid at Wake Forest. 2x NDT Octofinalist. 2x Kentucky Round Robin. Dartmouth Round Robin. Pittsburgh Round Robin.

Mountain Brook High School: 2007-2011. 3x TOC Qualifier. 2011 Winner of Emory's Barkley Forum in Policy Debate. Greenhill and Harvard Round Robin. Third Place at NSDA Nationals in 2011. Seventh Place NSDA Nationals 2010. Winner of Woodward JV Nationals.

Policy Thoughts:

Tl;dr: Offense/defense, the algorithm, cards are currency. UQ determines link unless otherwise said. Willing to pull the trigger on T/theory.

Flow: Most debaters should make analytics off their flows, especially in digital debate. Conversely, if you include analytics on your speech doc but I do not find you clear but I recognize where you are on your speech doc, I will not consider them arguments.

Condo: Im largely ok with conditionality. I think the best aff args against conditional are against contradictory conditional options. I do not really like the counter-interp of dispo. Im a much bigger fan of CI is non-contradictory conditional options.

• 3 or less non contradictory conditional options is ok to me
• 2 contra condo is fine
• 3 contradictory condo (including a K) and I am willing to vote on contra condo bad.
• For new affs, I think at most 5 contra condo is permissive. Anymore and I think you risk losing on theory.
• I think negs should take the 2 seconds it takes to have a CI that isn't "what we did." "What we did" is not really a good CI in debates.

CP Theory: If the 2AC straight turns your disad, no amount of theory will justify a 2NC CP out of/around the straight turned DA. 2NC CP's vs addons are different and chill/encouraged. Generic Process/ Conditions/ consult CPs cause me to lean aff on theory/perm, unless you have a good solvency advocate specific to their plan text which can prove its predictable and important for that area of debate. But I’m persuaded that a generic/predictable aff posted on the wiki can win a theory debate/perm do CP against a generic process/ conditions/ consult CPs. This is especially true with any Con Con CP. Con Con is the worst.

I hate judge kick. Do you want me to flow for you too? Maybe compose your speech doc while you're at it? I don't give the affirmative random permutations. Don't make me kick your trash counterplan for you.

T: My "favorite" standards are predictable limits (debatability) and real-world context (literature/education). I think a topicality interp that has both of those standards I will err on. Evidence that is both inclusive and exclusive is the gold standard. I tend to be more moderate with reasonability. I am not in the cult of limits. I err aff if I believe your interpretation is "reasonable" and that the negative did not prove you made debate impossible even if their interpretation is slightly better.

Kritikal Debate. I vote off the flow, which means my opinions on K debate are secondary to my voting. And I was 4-0 for Wake BD last year in some big debates against policy teams, so I'm going to vote for the team that I thought did the better debating (But are you Wake BD?). Im not really opposed to kritiks on the negative that are tied to the plan/resolution or kritikal affirmatives that defend a topical plan of action. I think where I draw the line is that I'm not a good judge for more performance based "affirmatives/negatives" that neither affirm nor negate the plan text/resolution. I lean very heavily neg on FW v non or anti-topical K affs. I think a good topical version of the affirmative is the best argument on FW. The role of the judge is to vote for the team who does the better debating. Debate is an educational game we play on the weekend with friends. I will not evaluate arguments that derive from actions/events out of the debate I am judging. Fairness is an impact and intrinsically good. I do not believe the ballot has material power to change the means of production/structures and thinking it does may even be problematic.

Please do not read global warming good. Global warming is real and will kill us all. And I am particularly persuaded by the argument that introducing these arguments in debate is unethical for spreading propaganda and should be deterred by rejecting the team. I'm way more persuaded by inevitability and alt cause args.

I am a college student at the University of Alabama currently studying argumentation. I have spent the semester debating in class and practicing flowing. I will be flowing the rounds to the best of my ability.

I am a blank slate and will have no opinions when entering the debates. My personal beliefs or knowledge will have not impact on the decisions I make.

I debates I have been a part of, we weigh impacts to determine whether an action should or should not be taken. Make your impacts clear and prioritize impact comparisons.

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

Go very slowly! I know what I am doing in terms of flowing, but if you are going too fast I will not be able to keep up. If going too fast, I will hold up my hand to notify you to slow down.

I prefer a clear, evidenced-based debate. I won't tell you what to run because it's your round, but I will tell you I prefer traditional arguments. If you run ks, they need to be articulated with clear alts.

Use an email chain - include me (lizannwood@hotmail.com) on it, and be honest about the evidence. Paraphrasing is one of my biggest pet peeves. (Post-rounding and making me wait for endless evidence exchanges are the others).

Don't be rude or condescending. You can be authoritative while also being polite.

Speed: case-spreading is fine, esp if I have speech docs, but slow down in rebuttals.

Reasonability over competing interps.

Experience:

Mountain Brook Schools Director of Speech and Debate 2013 - current

Mountain Brook High School debate coach 2012-2013

Thompson High School policy debater 1991-1995

Qualifications/ Recognitions:

Authored 3 sets of lesson plans in the National Speech and Debate Association's series found here: https://www.speechanddebate.org/start-here/

Member - Emory University Gold Key Society

Gabe Witmer Judging Paradigm

Purpose- I will judge the debates based on who can give a better argument. By that, I mean point out flaws in the opposition and expand on how your argument is better than the opposition. I will not judge arguments based on personal beliefs or prior knowledge, I am strictly looking at the content in the argument and what team’s argument is better.

Experience- I am a senior in college studying argumentation. I have flowed a number of debates in class and understand what makes a good argument. With that being said, I will flow each argument to the best of my ability. I have also participated in debates myself.

Likely to Vote on- In debates that I am accustomed to, we look at the impacts and determine whether an action should be taken or not. Therefore, make the impacts your team is presenting clear and to prioritize impact comparison in the arguments.

Evaluating Evidence- I will not call for evidence unless the other team urges me to examine the evidence presented by the opposition. I will also call for evidence if it is in question and a central reason in deciding who won the round.

Speed- Try to slow the arguments down, so I can evaluate each reason with precision and make sure I understand it entirely. If you are going too fast, then there might be critical information I may miss that would lead to benefiting the other team. If a team is going too fast through their argument I will raise my hand to indicate that they need to slow down.