Hello! I am Sam Copa. This will be my 3rd year doing Public Forum debate. I have done Lincoln Douglas and Policy as well, so I am familiar with the structure of most debate events. Being a Novice Tournament, there are a few things I am looking for in a round.

General Info:

Try to fill your speech time up! + or - 15 seconds from the set structure is ideal for me.

Roadmap your arguments! It will be easiest for me to flow if you tell me what point you are attacking/defending. (e.g. In my opponents first contention, subpoint A...)

Coming from Public Forum, I like evidence. I will be better able to weigh your arguments if you can show that external sources prove the same thing you are saying. In my opinion its good practice to have a card or two back every argument you make, but as long as you are clear and logical in your argumentation I will most definitely flow your arguments.

I highly encourage efficient cross examination, as long as you are polite to your opponent. I will not flow cross x, so make sure to bring important arguments up in later speeches.

I am perfectly comfortable with speed, as long as you are clear about what you say. I would strongly prefer you don't spread. If you need to disclose your case to me for me to understand your arguments, you are going too fast. I will not tell you to slow down, I simply won't be able to flow your arguments.

I am fine with progressive arguments (counterplans, Kritiques, etc.) as long as they are fair for the opposing team (especially at a Novice tournament :D). Do note that I have debated almost uniquely within traditional circuits, so I will be unfamiliar with most progressive literature. You will have to walk me through step by step. As long as your arguments are logical, and presented well by you, I will be able to flow it.

In your final speeches, weigh impacts for me. Show me why your arguments are better than your opponents, and why your impacts matter the most. I would love if you could give voters as well, just clear arguments why you have won the round.

Speaker points:

In most scenarios, I will never give below 25 speaker points. Here is my "rubric" of sorts.

30 - Excellent argumentation, clear, persuasive speaking. Polite in cross, etc.

29 - Good Argumentation, clear, persuasive speaking. Polite in cross, etc.

28 - Well rounded speaker. Clear argumentation, generally polite.

27 - Overall Good. Few slipups.

26 - You made it through the round respectably.

25 - I couldn't understand you well.

Below 25 - You were intentionally racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc. Or you were poorly mannered throughout the round.

Thanks for reading this far! Sorry it was a bit wordy. Remember this is the first tournament for many of you, so it is okay to make mistakes. Don't stress if you can, in essence debate is just a game. I will give the best feedback I can so you can improve for your next tournaments. Good Luck!

she/her

add me to the email chain: amritakrishn@gmail.com

Hi my name is Bryn Montierth. I am currently a Political Science and Film Production student at the University of Kansas and I'm familiar with all levels of debate from traditional high school to collegiate. I competed primarily in LD through high school, though I have done most forms of Speech and Debate at one point or another.

Add me to the email chain brynelizmoti@gmail.com or let me know the speechdrop code if you use either

Hi all, my name is Ella Nebeker and I have a background of speech & debate participation, with my main event being PF but I have also done a few rounds of policy and LD. I don't really have debate style preferences, but there are some things I will be looking for and general expectations.

Expectations:

-Be courteous and respectful to your opponent/ team mate

-Please do not talk over other people

-Try not to raise your voice to make your point

-Time yourself (but I will be keeping time as well)

-Speaking clearly and understandably is more important than speaking quickly

Things I will be looking for:

-Impacts are a big deal. You need to tell me why your impact is more important in the context of the round and why you can provide for your impact better than your opponent

-Don't bring up framework if you plan to drop it later on, it's just a waste of time

-I do tend to judge off of the flow, so keep that in mind

-Cards should have analysis attached to them, I need to understand the purpose of the evidence in context of your argument

-Signpost! Voters especially are very helpful as a weighing mechanism

-Exclusionary strategies will cost you speaker points/ the round

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask :)

LD/PF:

What makes Lincoln Douglas unique to other debate events is the value and criterion debate, so that will be my main reason for decision. I vote on Framework heavily for PF.I also value impact A LOT, or in other words: let me know why I should care about this round, and more importantly, why I should listen to you specifically. Also one of my biggest pet peeves is when all competitors do is read cards and have no analytical argumentation. Amalytics show you know what you're talking about and you can make arguments on the spot.

When it comes to speech etiquette, I would like you to be clear and concise with your speeches, and just don't be rude to your opponent, you can be passionate, just not simply impolite.

John Shackelford

Policy Coach: Park City, UT

***ONLINE DEBATE***

I keep my camera on as often as I can. I still try to look at faces during CX and rebuttals. Extra decimals if you try to put analytics in doc.

I end prep once the doc has been sent.

GO SLOWER

****TLDR IN BOLD****

Please include me in email chains during the debate (johnshackelf[at]gmail). I do not follow along with the speech doc during a speech, but sometimes I will follow along to check clipping and cross-ex questions about specific pieces of evidence.

Here is what an ideal debate looks like. (Heads up! I can be a silly goose, so the more you do this, the better I can judge you)

- Line by Line (Do it in order)

- Extending > reading a new card (Your better cards are in your first speech anyway. Tell me how the card is and how it frames the debate in your future analysis)

- More content >Less Jargon (avoid talking about the judge, another team, flows, yourselves. Focus on the substance. Avoid saying: special metaphors, Turns back, check back, the link check, Pulling or extending across, Voting up or down. They don’t exist.)

- Great Cross-examination (I am okay with tag team, I just find it unstrategic)

- Compare > description (Compare more, describe less)

- Overviews/Impact Calc (Focus on the core controversy of the debate. Offense wins)

- Engage > Exclude

- Clarity > Speed

- Making generics specific to the round

- Researched T Shells (Do work before reading T. I love T, but I have a standard on what is a good T debate)

- Arguments you can only read on this topic!!

Popular Q&A

- K/FW: More sympathetic to Ks that are unique to the topic. But I dig the 1 off FW strat or 9 off vs a K.

- Theory: Perfcon theory is a thing, condo theory is not a thing. I like cheating strats. I like it when people read theory against cheating strats too.

- Prep time: I stop prep time when you eject your jump drive or when you hit send for the email. I am probably the most annoying judge about this, but I am tired of teams stealing prep and I want to keep this round moving

- I flow on my computer

Want extra decimals?

Do what I say above, and have fun with it. I reward self-awareness, clash, sound research, humor, and bold decisions. It is all about how you play the game.

Cite like Michigan State and open source like Kentucky

Speaker Points-Scale - I'll do my best to adhere to the following unless otherwise instructed by a tournament's invite:

30-99%perfect

29.5-This is the best speech I will hear at this tournament, and probably at the following one as well.

29-I expect you to get a speaker award.

28.5-You're clearly in the top third of the speakers at the tournament.

28-You're around the upper middle (ish area)

27.5-You need some work, but generally, you're doing pretty well

27-You need some work

26.5-You don't know what you're doing at all

26 and lower-you've done something ethically wrong or obscenely offensive that is explained on the ballot.

All in all, debate in front of me if your panel was Mike Bausch, Mike Shackelford, Hannah Shoell, Catherine Shackelford, and Ian Beier

If you have any questions, then I would be more than happy to answer them

noataussky@gmail.com

4 years of PF @ West High School

(new to LD)

I won't waste your time:

- Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. or you get voted down

- Be respectful of your opponents, a little sass is fun, but do not be rude, that's not fun.

- Tell me where to vote; otherwise I'm just doing path of least resistance

- I'll flow everything, but make it easy for me. Make sure to extend, if you drop it, I forget it. Also make your links clear, and get out of here with slippery slope args, high mag but low prob makes a bad impact, and I won't buy it

- ~clearly~ weigh your impacts

- You can talk fast, just be clear

- Good analytics can be just as good (or better) than card evidence

- Tell me what I need to believe, and assume I know nothing about the topic (I probably don't)

- I'm pretty relaxed about prep

"If you don't get a hole in one, you get a hole in none"

-Copa