In all types of debate, keep in mind: QUANTITY IS NOT QUALITY. Don't try to win by simply overwhelming your opponent(s) with arguments. Gish gallops will not work with me, so don't try them.

I am an old-school LD judge. I want to see a clear values clash and hear some philosophy, not just a long list of cards. Cases that are not grounded in ethical theory will have a harder time winning me over. Kritik cases are fine so long as they are not abusive -- that is, so long as they leave the opposition some ground from which to argue. A kritik of the resolution is fine, but generic kritiks that could be run against any case / resolution are not.Also, any out-of-round kritiks just aren't going to work with me. These almost always revolve around claims that I have no way to verify, or debaters essentially making up rules that they they then accuse their opponents of breaking.

I am STRONGLY opposed to spreading in LD. I believe that it is the bane of the event. Certainly it is an excuse to toss out a lot of abusive one-way hash arguments. Anything much faster than a typical conversational pace is likely to cause me to stop flowing your case. Make your point with QUALITY, not quantity.

Please do NOT offer to send me your case. If I cannot follow your case AS YOU PRESENT IT IN THE ROUND, you are NOT communicating it clearly enough.

Tech cases are unlikely to impress me. Win with strong arguments, not technicalities.

Semantic arguments are fine, but keep them on point; don't descend into trivialities.

In Public Forum, I am similarly NOT a fan of "progressive" debate. This is PUBLIC forum, so make arguments that could impress any reasonably well-informed and attentive audience, not just judges who know all of technical debate language. Make reasonable claims which clearly support your side of the resolution, support them with significant and relevant evidence, and weigh impacts. Tell me why your impacts outweigh your opponents', tell me why your evidence is superior to theirs, tell me why your claims lead to me voting for your side of the resolution.

I prefer-

• No spreading

• keep your own time

• Be respectful of your component

• confirm your internet is off

Good Luck

Twenty years of coaching speech and debate (LD, PF, and Policy) mostly in Colorado, but last six years in Florida.

Two Colorado PF State Champions, as well as a team that finished 4th in NSDA Nationals. Look for quality arguments that have clean internal links and impacts. I look for teams that know how to properly weigh the opposing positions, and can identify the most impactful arguments that have surfaced in the round. Flow judge, but I can only flow what I can hear, so excessive speed will cost you. The winning team will know how to use each different speech in PF according to its designed intent (e.g. a Final Focus should not look like a frantic line-by-line rebuttal).

Coached state LD champ in Colorado and several NSDA national qualifiers in LD. Fairly traditional in LD judging. Will weigh competing values, but cases must clearly link to value being proposed/defended. Definitely a flow judge, but all arguments are not created equally. Looking for good analysis, and will definitely look for clear links. For that reason, spread is not generally going to impress me as I value quality over quantity. Some speed is fine, but most debaters think they are clearer at speed than they are, and if you fail to clearly communicate your argument, I can't properly flow it. Most kritiks are pretty poorly constructed, and I can only recall picking up a team based on their K one or two times. Debaters like to ask if I will vote on Theory arguments. The simple answer is that it depends on the theory and how well its run.

Also judge WSD. I generally like this form. The key to winning is well constructed argumentation, with proper warrants for your claims (empirical evidence or through logic, both count). This is a unique form and I expect you to use your time well in the way you structure your speeches, build on previous arguments (don't just repeat), and clearly demonstrate how your arguments refute or subsume your opponents. Delivery should be more 'congressional' than that of a spread debater. Quality, not quantity, of argument wins here. Use your POIs well. They are an interesting strategic device.

I’m a parent judge with 3 years of judging experience on the local and national circuits. I have a few preferences that need to be followed during a round in order to persuade me:

First, no spreading. If you sound like you’re struggling to breath, how am I going to be able to understand you? Please keep your pace to a conversational speed so I can flow. If I miss something on the flow, I can’t vote based on it.

Second, traditional debate is what I’m used to. I’ve judged many local Florida tournaments where tradiational debate is the go to style of debating. This means having a value, value criterion, good philosophy, and solid evidence. I’m not all too familiar with K’s, LARP debate, theory, counterplans, or DA’s.

The important thing to keep in mind is to keep it civil. You’re not going to impress me by belittling your opponent in cross examination, or rolling your eyes when the other person speaks. Keep it kind.

Also, have fun and don’t be nervous! Having confidence is a huge key to winning. If you sound confident, you’re more than likely to convince me. That doesn’t mean you can run fake evidence though.

In my 25th year as the head debate coach at Strake Jesuit. Prior to that I worked as a public defender.Persuasion, clarity, and presentation matter to me. I have a workable knowledge on many progressive arguments, but my preference is traditional, topical debate. Because I don't judge much, it is important to speak clearly and articulate the things that you want me to pay close attention to. If you go too fast and don't follow this advice you will lose me. I will not vote off of something that I don't understand. You need to make my path to your ballot clear. I like certain types of theory arguments and will vote off of them if there is a demonstrated abuse (topicality, disclosure, etc.). My firm belief is that you should debate the topic assigned. I also am a big fan of disclosure. I think that it levels the playing field for all involved. Drops matter. Impacting is important. Giving clear reasons why you are winning offense is the easiest way to pick up my ballot.

*For all email chains - email to jcrist1965@gmai.comand strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org - include both*

I have judged JV and Novice before at a few tournaments such as Minneapple and Yale. While I am a lay judge, you will need to slow WAY down and be very clear I can still evaluate good arguments. Feel free to read anything you want in front of me but if it is more philosophical or tricky you will need to slow down and give me a clear explanation of everything. Also, I will not do weighing and extending for you. This you have to be clear when leveraging any of your case against your opponents. Don’t read theory, or complicated K’s in front of me it’s not worth it. If you are rude, homophobic, sexist or racist I will TANK your speaks. Signpost, signpost, signpost!! I’m not going to know where to flow unless you specifically tell me where. 

1. I do not like spreading

2. Advise early if you are double entry so that I may permit you to go first so you can make both competitions

I have over 3 years of judging experience of various events including Congress, IE, PFD and LD (traditional) in regional and national level. Lately, I have been judging LD and PFD events.

I have a few preferences that need to be followed during a round in order to persuade me:

· Speak clearly, I understand speaking fast is necessary at times, but I should be able to comprehend everything you are saying.

· I expect civility and respect within the round, there will be no racism, sexism, misogyny, ethnocentrism, belittling of your opponent, or personal criticism of your opponent. If you display any of these actions I will no longer listen to you or your arguments.

· The debate will be weighed and judged on clear and consistent arguments on the framework, which are carried throughout the round.

· Evidence must be presented throughout the round. If your opponent doesn’t negate your evidence, emphasize on it to get the advantage.

· Framework is very important. You must have a clear value and value criterion. You must apply it to all of your arguments made in the round and uphold it at the end. I should be able to relate to the contention you’re speaking about and all of your supporting points.

· Please keep your pace to a conversational speed so I can flow. If I miss something on the flow, I can’t vote based on it.

· Having confidence is a key to effective debate. If you sound confident and bring your arguments clearly, you’re more than likely to convince me.

Judging Paradigm

I am a former high school debater, UF graduate, and current Assistant Coach for West Broward High. In high school, I competed mostly in PF, but also did Info and Congress. Experienced in judging local, national, and state tournaments. For any questions, feel free to ask before the round starts or email me at nataliefernandez1@yahoo.com

General:

• Not a fan of spreading, theory, K’s, etcetera. I judge a round based on strong evidence and the way you can execute the argument and oppose your opponent's case.

• Do not assume I am up to date with a topic, define any important terms or information that you believe will be important in a round that your judge and opponent need to know.

• Debate is a place for learning to foster and grow, no racism, misogyny, or ethnocentric views will award you any points towards winning the debate and will cost you the round.

Framework:

• I like clear-cut debate with an easy to understand framework that tells me how to analyze the round.

Speaks:

• There is no clear formula for how this happens. I evaluate based off of how you make arguments, your speaking style, and your effort in round.

• Belittling your opponent or trying to criticize anything aside from the information being debated in a round will not award you speaker points. I will stop listening to you. Professionalism and respect are two qualities that will take you further in life than arrogance and harshness. Choose kindness

University of Central Florida Alumnus

Four years of LD for Fort Lauderdale HS and former policy debater for UCF.
Pronouns: he/him/his

Email: delondoespolicy@gmail.com

***Avoid graphic explanations of gratuitous anti-black violence and refrain from reading radical Black positions if you are not Black.***

If you're rushing to do prefs here's a rough cheat sheet:

1- K and performance debates
2- framework debates, general topical debates
3- LARP debates and util debates
4- Theory/ Tricks debates

I will evaluate any argument so long as they are not morally repugnant, actively violent, or deeply rooted in foolishness. I can handle speed but due to the online setting, please go slower than you usually do. Also, be sure to properly extend and implicate your arguments in the debate as well, saying "extend X" and moving on doesn't really do much. In short, tell me why your arguments matter and why I should vote on/evaluate them. At the end of the day do what you do best—unless it's tricks and/or frivolous interps— and have fun doing it.

I teach Mandarin 1 at Strake Jesuit. Good debaters are like big politicians debating on a big stage. Persuasion is necessary. Speak clearly if you want to win. Please make sure your arguments are topical. I'd like a clear story explaining your position and the reasons you should win.

Cypress Bay '20 | Georgetown '24

Put me on the email chain: Gavsie.joshua@gmail.com

Top Level Stuff:

I did policy debate in HS and I'm currently competing at Georgetown.

Do whatever you want. I'm as happy to judge a K v K debate as I am a nuanced CP/DA debate. This round is for you all, not me. Most of my opinions about the activity can be overcome by good debating so just be smart and you can probably win my ballot.

That being said, there are obviously the standard non-negotiables. For example, "racism good" or anything else of the sort gets you an L with 0 speaker points. I feel like shouldn't have to say much more here just please don't be a bad person.

Good speaks for good debating, great speaks for being funny.

A significant amount of the following stuff is taken from Tessa Harper. I think they articulated their thoughts on this stuff really well and it mirrors how I feel about these issues.

How I Evaluate Debates:

I'll evaluate arguments as per the execution on the line-by-line unless told otherwise. Dropped arguments are true but that doesn't mean it's the best argument or the winning one. Explain why concessions matter and why they should frame my ballot.

I'll have the speech doc open but I'll be following YOU so please be clear (especially in online debate)!! I'll be looking at cards if I really need to or if specific pieces of evidence are flagged.

Clash Debates:

- I'll vote for framework but it's not an excuse to not engage with the affirmative. Negative teams that fail to do this usually sound like block-reading robots and will not fare super well in these debates unless they grapple with specific parts of aff offense.

- That being said, there is a difference between T and framework. If you want to take the aff up on some other part of the topicality debate outside of focus on the USFG, I'm definitely down for that.

- Critical affs should probably have a model of debate. This means that impact turns to T should be coupled with a good counter-intepretation and that the aff should counter-define words in the 2AC. A 2AR that is impact turns alone without a vision for what we are doing in this activity or in a debate will be much harder for me to vote for than a warranted vision for debate that provides at least some defense/link turns to their standards.

- Examples/history matter a lot and will influence how I evaluate competing theories of power -- whether it is techy IR debate or a high theory discussion of psychoanalytic black feminism, I think that theories draw their explanatory power from material realities of the world and I tend to be be more easily convinced by debaters and scholars who tie their theory to that world. This doesn't mean I need you to be empiricists or defend a materialist conception of history, just that having a knowledge of how your theory is related to the world around you will make the arg far more persuasive to me than floating buzzwords.

- TVAs are usually not super important to me. At best, they're fine defensive arguments but not what you really need to be winning in these debates to get my ballot.

- Critical affs should ideally have a relationship to the topic that is inherent and significant. I will be more persuaded by T against affs that don't do or say anything about water than I will be against teams that read an affirmative which answers a core question of the topic.

- K's v policy affs -- the good ol' framework tricks like fiat bad are nice and works far too often (ehem affs) but I also enjoy in-depth link and alt work. The affirmative tends to lose these debates when it doesn't leverage the case beyond "we have a big impact" -- timeframe args, comparative arguments about alt solvency, etc. are all very helpful when adjudicating these debates and the negative should prepare for them beyond simply the frame out, even if it is a useful trick. These are the kind of debates I'm the most well versed in if that's something that's important to y'all.

K v K debates:

- These debates can be a lot of fun to watch - if both sides demonstrate a good understanding and application of the literature they're reading I'll be very satisfied.

- I like critical affs that defend material praxis. Advocating for grounded praxis will always get me interested in a debate. Don't let this mean you abandon theory -- theory is extremely important for controlling the direction of politics, subject formation, praxis, etc. but when I have a soft spot for critical affs that are able to combine theory with praxis. (See above about using history.)

CPs:

- Advantage counterplans with impact turns as the net benefit are underutilized in the debates I judge.

- I get annoyed when teams let counterplans absolve them of the need for good case debate. Solvency deficits to the aff matter as much as the aff's solvency deficits to the counterplan.

- PICs -- I like these. The more substantive the PIC's relationship to the aff, the less I will be persuaded by theory.

DAs:

- Specific DAs are always good but politics can be good too and get the job done when debated well

- The relative magnitude of the uniquness/links determine what the direction of things are. Be comparative.

- 2ACs/1ARs that impact turn disads strategically are cool

Topicality:

- Not super familiar with the T norms on the water topic - do with that what you will

- I do really enjoy T debates - creating distinctions between the kinds of ground/affs that are allowed or denied is the sort of comparative work that makes decisions easier.

- Precise and predictable limits are good!

- Functional limits exist and are persuasive to me but you should be clear about why and how.

- Evidence is either extremely important or largely irrelevant depending on how it is framed - you should control this framing.

- I default to competing interps but reasonability arguments paired with a strong push on arbitrariness/precision can be persuasive.

Pet Peeves in no particular order:

- Not flowing speeches. There shouldn't be a minute and a half of figuring out what cards were skipped before cross-ex. (Especially in varsity debates lol like cmon pay attention)

- Bastardizing revolutionary history and/or reading ev written by reactionaries will lower your ethos and speaker points - there are so many better ways to debate the cap K than reading imperialist propaganda about communism. Please do better.

- Don't call me "judge." Josh is fine.

- Profoundly untopical policy affs written only to beat critical teams but never to be read against policy teams (ehem, "sabotage")

- Being mean for no reason in cross ex.

- Reading the cap K as a root cause/state good double whammy, rather than, ya know, a real argument.

LD Things

Everything above still applies but it’s worth noting that I think tricks/friv theory is an absurd form of argumentation. If this happens to be your thing, strike me and move on. If you primarily read anything else, I’m probably a fine judge for whatever you want to do lol.

I’m not super familiar with the heavy philosophical aspects of LD but am not unwilling to vote for it, I just may require a higher threshold for explanation in these debates.

PF Things

My background is in policy debate but I'm familiar with the structure and style of PF rounds. That being said, I'm really not trying to watch kids in PF attempt to spread through their case and adapt to me in a way that is clearly not their preferred style of debating. What this does mean is that I have a higher standard for evidence comparison, line by line, and actually answering arguments. If you do these things, you're in a good spot. If you don't, you will likely lose. Feel free to ask any questions before the round.

ALSO, the evidentiary standards in this activity are wild. If someone calls for a card and it takes you five minutes to send out a link to a 60-page PDF, I will not be terribly happy. Please actually cut cards and have them readily accessible in the debate.

I have been a litigation attorney in Florida for 24 years. Today I mainly handle appeals in Florida state court, which is a similar but abbreviated form of alternating debate with interruptions and questions from the judges (for example, 10 minute opening/15 minute answer/5 minute rebuttal). Like debaters, lawyers are limited to a specific time.

I have judged high school debate at the Harvard Forensics tournament for the last two years, including on 3-judge elimination panels. Generally, I have a distaste for overly technical arguments which don't actually tend to show that the speaker is right or the opponent is wrong. I cannot accept "spreading" because (1) it is something that would never, ever happen in court, a meaningful debate, or argument on television in a county or city commission meeting, state legislature, Congress, or anywhere else in the real world; and (2) it is impossible for me to follow, take notes and evaluate the presentation. Speaking too fast also suggests a panicked or rushed delivery that just isn't effective.

I think making eye contact and calm, respectful but confident, conversational (not flippant, sarcastic, informal or casual) style is the most effective way to make a persuasive case for anything. Instead of speaking too fast with too many words, a winning debater chooses words well and is concise and direct.

A speaker should look me in the eye and convey logically why their case is right; what support they have for their argument; why the opponent's arguments are flawed/illogical/wrong; and why the opponent's supporting authority is flawed or reliance thereon is misplaced or illogical.

I'm Mackenzie and I debated in PF for West Orange for three years both on the national and local circuit. I don't know what's happened to the evidence standard in PF but it is rampant with falsified and/or misrepresented evidence. Winning my ballot is pretty easy, just be truthful, persuasive, and extend the arguments you want me to vote off of in every speech. I believe it is the opponents job to call out evidence if it isn't substantial and I am NOT an intervening judge, however if I call for evidence, I will not vote on it if you have misrepresented it. Be savage and have fun!

Barry University School of Law (2021 - Present)

American Heritage School, Head Debate Coach (2019 - 2021)

California State University, Fresno (2017-2019)

Contact Information: My email is nickbmirza95@gmail.com. I would like to be on the email chain.

Overview

Since I'm no longer coaching, my perspectives have changed and leave it up to you how I should confront the debate, regardless of argumentation style. My experience has almost exclusively dealt with running a plan text, disdadvantage/counterplan, and framework/cap (I can count on one hand the amount of times I went for cap though). I'm not against evaluating planless affirmatives when the debaters engage with the substance of their opponents arguments. I enjoy the clash between policy and kritikal teams.

Evidence Quality

I place a high value on evidence quality. I'll evaluate arguments that address a discrepancy between what is being said and what the evidence actually says. It's important to me that you know and understand the evidence you are bringing into the round.

Speed

I'm comfortable with speed, but my advice is too slow down on important arguments so I can make sure I flow it properly. This includes any prewritten analytics that are unloaded at me.

Topicality

I'm less persuaded by topicality in a policy throw down and would prefer a debate about the implications of the plan. I default to competing interpretations. Evidence should have an intent to define.

Framework

I enjoy framework debates. There needs to be an explanation of why your model of debate is better.

Disadvantages

My favorite. The link is the most important. Evidence that doesn't talk about the specific plan of the affirmative should be addressed, but I can be persuaded if the negative can thoroughly explain the application.

Counterplans

Eh. There needs to be a net benefit. I'm inclined to believe the status quo is a viable option, so in my adverse opinion, a counterplan is best when it's essential to alleviate a disadvantage. No opinion on judge kicking, but permutations need to be answered thoroughly. Lean negative on condo.

Kritiks

I'll vote for them. The alternative explanation is important and I listen/flow attentively to how it is conveyed. Generally, I have trouble understanding how alternatives function in the real world, so you need to do that explanation for me. I evaluate debate space impacts, but would prefer an analysis of outside of the round as well. I don't read the literature and my experience in debate is pretty much exclusively answering kritiks. My familiarity with literature leans toward identity. I don't understand post modernism or high theory whatsoever.

I'm a junior at UF studying mathematics and economics.

I competed at Cypress Bay High School for three years on the national circuit.

I was mostly a K debater. I will assume Theory over K if nothing is said about it in the round. I do not have a preference for one or the other. I barely ran tricks.

Run whatever you want, but make sure you explain it. Don't just assume I've read the lit you're arguing from. I ran some Baudrillard, Agamben, Kappeler, etc. I will like you a lot if you run Kappeler well. I haven't seen anyone else run it.

On spreading. I haven't judged a round since October 2017, and I haven't competed since Jan 2017, so take that as you will. I'm down for email chains. Honestly, just be clear. It should be fine if you explain your arguments, frame the round, and are clear.

Don't be offensive.

It would be kind of ridiculous if you were looking for a judge that did not put "don't be offensive" in their paradigm so you could in fact be offensive.

Here is a completely random and no way meaningful list of foods common in mexian cuisine:

white rice, NO BEANS, fajitas, half steak, half chicken, tamatillo red-chili salsa (hot), sour cream, corn, cheese, and lettuce. Tortilla on the side.

I am a parent of an LD debater. The majority of the rounds I've judged have been traditional stock rounds on the local circuit. Please speak slowly and explain your arguments very well. I will do my best to flow and keep up with the round.

Background: I am a physician and also the head coach of a Speech and Debate team. I was a former high school policy debater, but that does not mean I like spreading or progressive arguments. I'm a dinosaur. See below.

PF

General: The team that is able to support their offense with strong logic and good evidence while having effective defense against their opponents' case will win the round. Duh.

Speed: I am okay with some speed. You will see me flowing during the round, but this is a no spread zone.

Cases: I like strong links to your impacts, which is why I usually find stock arguments to be the strongest. However, I also like squirrels, but only if your links are convincing. I don't believe in tabula rasa judging. If something doesn't make sense or the link is weak, I will be less likely to vote on it. I am a judge after all and that's what I get paid the big bucks to do. Actually, I don't get paid, but if I did get paid, I'm sure it would be big bucks.

Progressive arguments: Please, for all that is good in the world, do not bring progressive LD nonsense into PF. OK? PF is the last bastion of debate purity left. My ROB is to drop progressive arguments and don't try to RVI me.

Crossfire: Be courteous. If someone is trying to be a time hog, I am okay with polite interruption. I sometimes vote on something that comes up in CF, but you should mention it in your speeches if you want me to not forget. Word to the wise: I've dropped many debaters because CF sometimes reveals their lack of knowledge and/or incoherent warranting. That's why I will flow CF.

2nd Rebuttal: You should probably start frontlining now. Starting frontlines in 2nd Summary is a little late in the round and puts too much of a burden on the 1st FF to backline for the first time. Luckily this is a rarity in PF.

Summary: You should extend all offense and defense. I don't believe in sticky defense. If you don't extend in Summary, don't expect me to vote on it if it suddenly shows up in FF. You should start weighing in Summary. In fact, you could start weighing in rebuttals. Don't wait until FF. For Rebuttal, Summary, and FF, please give me logical warrants beyond just reading the cards. In other words, explain the card with logical analysis. I frown on debaters who rely solely on card reading.

Grand CF: This should have balanced involvement of all debaters.

FF: When rounds are close, I will use the FF to write my RFD, so I hope you are a good writer. Weigh impacts, cases, links, evidence. Metaweigh if needed, although I often find metaweighing too subjective unless you can convince me that you outweigh on prereqs. Make sure to extend at least your most important if not all offense. I'm fine if you drop a contention and collapse on one or two, but be careful. I have dropped debaters because they chose the wrong contention to drop (it was actually their best offense).Offense is what wins rounds. But to make sure your offense is better than your opponent's offense, your defense better be legit. It doesn't matter to me when you weigh and give voters...after each issue or at the end...it's up to you.

Evidence ethics: I HATE power cutting where you pull single words from one sentence and attach to a single word two sentences later and think that is a legit way to cut. If the two sentences are logically linked, then okay. But most power cut cards are atrocious. They often end up being straw arguments or horribly paraphrased. I won't necessarily call for a card myself. This is where I need teams to be proactive. If you suspect bad evidence, call for it in round. Call it out in your speech and request that I look at it at the end of the round.

Calling cards: Yes, include me on an email chain when sharing evidence. When requesting evidence, I will consider prep time to begin once the evidence is received. Please announce when that happens and that you are taking prep. Don't be sneaky.

LD

Although I am a former policy debater, I am not a fan of Kritiks, Theory Shells or ROBs. I prefer debate on the substance of the resolution. So in that respect I consider myself more of a traditional LD judge. However, I am okay with plans and CPs because that totally appeals to my policy debate background. However, if you run a plan or CP, make sure you check the boxes on solvency, topicality, uniqueness, and inherency. Even if your opponent doesn't identify all the problems with your plan/CP, I won't be able to weigh your impacts if I don't believe that your plan is going to get you there.

Please don't just read cards. This is a definite problem I've noticed with progressive debaters trying to adapt to a traditional round. You need to give me some solid warranting so I can effectively weigh your arguments and also so I know you know what you are talking about.

In terms of framework, I will go with whoever makes the best case for theirs. But what I've often found is that the contention level debate ends up fitting many frameworks, so it really comes down to your arguments. However, if you go all in on something like util, make sure you have some terminal impacts for me to see exactly how you benefit the majority or maximize pleasure/minimize pain.

Crystallization and more extensive analytics and voters in the 2AR and 2NR is helpful, especially when the round gets muddy. I don't care as much if you drop an opponent's argument as long as that argument is not effective offense.

I don't believe in tabula rasa judging. If I did, then we could use computers to determine the winner of a round and we wouldn't need human judges. So I WILL cast my own opinion on an argument if I think it makes zero sense or is not well warranted. After all, I am a judge and that's my job. I am going to judge your arguments on their merits. I will extend a solid argument unless your opponent applies some good defense or turns.

I am not a fan of spreading. I am okay with some speed, but if I can't understand you, then it is not going on the flow. Even if I get your case via email, I'm not going to be reading it while you spread. This is a verbal activity and, therefore, I will only flow things that are verbally communicated and what I can hear and understand.

At the end of the day, I'm going to give the win to whoever I think had the most offense at the end of the round.

World Schools

I will judge based on traditional World Schools debating i.e. proper terminology, appropriate use of POIs, persuasive style and rhetoric, good logic and argumentation, and most importantly examples and statistics from around the world if appropriate. You will not win if you try to debate using PF or LD technical arguments, squirreling, or spreading. Do not try to burden opponents with limiting definitions or frameworks.

Background: I am a current student at FSU studying neuroscience. I competed in debate for 3 years in high school, participating in both local and national tournaments, and competing Lincoln-Douglas and occasionally extempt. I was the regional champion in LD for 2017 and 2018, was the captain of LD for my team, competed and broke at Isidore Newman, and competed at Bluekey and State.

Overall:

· I can keep up with more “progressive” arguments, but I do not like them very much, I think they cheat the entire real purpose of debate and I don’t recommend running them with me, but if you do I will be able to follow and there will be no bias against your case. Your arguments need to make sense, logic needs to be applied, and truthful evidence must be given no matter what arguments you run.

· Evidence must be carried throughout the round, if your opponent doesn’t negate your evidence, make that clear to me and carry it throughout. Be careful to not accidentally drop your own evidence by forgetting to mention it again.

· I will not flow cross-x, if something important is said it is your responsibility to bring it to my attention.

· Define everything, do not assume I know simple terms pertaining to the case.

· Framework is very important to me, you must have a clear value and value criterion, you must apply it to all of your arguments made in the round and uphold it at the end, I should be able to tell what contention/subpoint you’re speaking about and all of your separate points.

· I expect civility and respect within the round, there will be no racism, sexism, misogyny, ethnocentrism, belittling of your opponent, or personal criticism of your opponent. If you display any of these actions I will no longer listen to you or your arguments.

· Speak clearly, I understand speaking fast is necessary at times, but I should be able to comprehend everything you are saying. If you feel compelled to spread, I can understand and follow along, but the second you start sounding like you’re hyperventilating instead of speaking I will stop judging.

· The debate will be weighed on whose arguments and framework were the most clear, consistent, and carried throughout the round. Please remember these rounds are to be very civil, if throughout the round you are badgering your opponent and making personal attacks you will not win.

If you have any further questions, feel free to ask before the round! (:

Be very clear and precise with presenting your case.

I personally dislike spreading, If I don't understand you, it is to your detriment.

Really be clear on framework, I enjoy framework debate, and including to this please weigh in your 2NR and 2AR.

Giving me voters is a good way of securing the round, please ensure that you give voters.

DON'T BRING IN NEW EVIDENCE IN THE FINAL SPEECHES!

Please don't start yelling in CX, or getting overly aggressive in your speeches.

Good Luck!

Experience: I'm currently a high school teacher/debate coach, but not too long ago I was debating policy in college, and before that, in high school. I have also debated LD and parliamentary extensively, and, occasionally, PF.

I often flow without a speech doc. You can only go as fast as you are clear; unfortunately, I think this is necessary to dis-incentivize the race to the bottom of debaters ejecting un-enunciated syllables out of their mouths as quickly as possible, relying on the judge to evaluate off the speech doc. This is not generally a problem in novice or JV, because these debaters are rarely fast enough, but they may still be too unclear for me to understand. I will verbally clear you up to 3 times per speech if necessary. To clarify, spreading is fine IF it is clear (most people should be fine!)

Be kind and loving. Follow basic ethics both competitively and in your interactions with others while in the debate room.
Here's the stuff you need to know, policy first then LD at the bottom:

-----

Policy Debate

K vs. Policy: I ran more K-oriented cases in college but I was policy-oriented in HS, so I have a feel for both sides. I'd like to consider myself mostly balanced, but keep reading for specific situations.

Which type of K: Do whatever. Identity/high theory/cap/biopower/etc. are all totally fine with me. I have a degree in philosophy so unless you're doing some real wacky stuff I can hopefully keep up with you.

Framework: I will evaluate it and vote on it if you're winning, but typically I'd suggest you beef up your other positions in front of me -- I think the generic Cap v K debate is substantially better for most teams, especially novices/JV, as opposed to the FW v K debate. Liberalism good is also a very good argument in front of me.

K vs policy aff: Historically I think I tend to vote more for the K when vs "hard policy" cases, i.e. cases which go for the classic magnitude-focused impacts like extinction. However, I typically favor soft-left affs (i.e. affs with a plan which go for non-extinction impacts) vs the K.

The K either needs a coherent alt to weigh against the plan OR a coherent reason why my actual, physical ballot is important. I am unlikely to buy arguments that I am somehow part of a bigger movement of scholarly refusal or have a pedagogical burden or whatever -- I'm not even in academia anymore.

Policy stuff: CPs/DAs/etc - I am typically very sympathetic to arguments that claim various generic CPs (states, XO, etc.) are anti-educational because they obscure the core civics conversation of the debate. Making me sit through a states CP debate is a precarious position for you. Basically everything else should be fine.

Theory: 80% of the time theory is a waste in front of me. Theoretical arguments for substantive claims on other flows (e.g. a K flow) are fine. Exceptions covered below.

Condo: I find myself voting on condo bad a surprising amount of the time in situations where the neg has more than one conditional position.

PIK/PICs bad: I lean toward them being bad, but that is not a hard and fast rule.

Utopian/vague alts bad: Could be, but you can't just do boring fairness/education blocks. The best theoretical objections to alts deal with the substantive political implications of their form -- i.e. there are a lot of reasons why utopianism is bad and why vague political projects are bad, you should argue those and not "i can't possibly prep for this!!"

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

LD:

K, LARP, and phil debaters should probably pref me highly, especially phil debaters. Tricks and traditional debaters should probably not pref me highly. Friv theory is bad, Ks need well warranted explanations & alternatives and plans should be topical under the resolution.

I am a parent of an LD debater. The majority of rounds I have judged have been traditional rounds on the local circuit.

Please speak slowly and explain your arguments very well. I will do my best to flow and keep up with the round.

I prefer if you don't speak too fast. Please give me a summary at the end.

***NO SPEED OR SPREADING*** I will have difficulty understanding the speakers and be unable to provide results. I have no experience in competing or judging debate but I do prefer arguments that are well-explained and can be logically followed. I prefer debates that are persuasive through the use of a couple straight-forward points rather than many points that are more difficult to relate to the main argument. Broad, well-known topics with understandable vocabulary would be ideal.