BIO:

Education:

BA in Philosophy, Peace Studies, & Communication Studies from Regis University

MA Communication Studies -K-State University

Debate Teaching/Coaching:

-Debate Coach @ Colorado Academy ('23 - present)

-College Debate Coach @ K-State for BP debate ('21-'23)

-Assistant Coach for WSD @ The Greenhill School ('20-'23)

- Instructor, VBI-San Diego '24

- Instructor, Harvard University - Harvard Debate Workshop '24

-Curriculum Coordinator & Top Lab Leader at Global Debate Symposium for WSD ('19-present)

-Instructor at Baylor Debate Institute for LD ('22)

-Instructor at Stanford National Forensics Institute (PF & Parli) ('19-'21)

PARADIGM
First and foremost I believe debate is about engagement and education. I highly value the role of charity in argumentation and the function of intellectual humility in debate.

NOTEs FOR ONLINE DEBATING:

1) You'll likely need to go slower

2) Be gracious to everyone, don't freak out if someone's Wi-Fi drops

3) I've reverted to flowing on paper--so signpost signpost signpost *See my sections on Cross-X & Speed*

You’ll see two distinct paradigms for WSD & LD/Policy in that order:

World Schools

I love World Schools Debate! This has by far become my favorite format of debate!

Do not run from the heart of the motion--instead, engage in the most salient and fruitful clashes. Weigh very clearly and don't forget to extend the principled/framework conversation throughout the entire debate (not just in the 1!). Ensure that you have a logical structure for the progression and development of the bench, work on developing and staying true to your team line. Work to weigh the round at the end--divide the round into dissectible and engaging sections that can be understood through your given principle or framework system. You are speaking to the judge as an image of a global, informed citizen--you cannot assume that I know all of the inner workings of the topic literature, even if I do; work to sell a clear story: make the implicit, explicit. World Schools Debate takes seriously each of the following: Strategy, Style, and Content. Many neglect strategy and style--too few develop enough depth for their content. Ensure that you take each judging area seriously.

Some thoughts on WSD

1. Prop Teams really need to prioritize establishing a clear comparative and beginning the weighing conversation in the Prop 3 to overcome the time-skew in the Opp Block. This involves spelling out clearly in the prop three not only what the major clashes in the round are but also what sort of voters I should prefer and why.

2. Weighing is a big deal and needs to happen on two levels. The first level has to do with the specific content of the round and the impacts (i.e., who is factually correct about the material debated and the characterizations that are most likely). The second level has to do with the mechanics leveraged in the substantives and defensive part of the round (i.e., independent of content—who did the better debating by relying on clear incentives, layered characterizations, and mechanisms). Most debates neglect this second level of weighing; these levels work together and complement each other.

3. Opposition teams should use the block strategically. This means that the material covered in the opp reply should not be a redundant repetition of the opp 3. One of these two speeches should be more demonstrative (the 3) and the other less defensive (the 4) — we can view them as cohesive but distinct because they prioritize different issues and methods. There is a ton of room to play around here, but bottom line is that I should not hear two back to back identical speeches.

4. Big fan of principled arguments, but lately I have found that teams are not doing a fantastic job weighing these arguments against practical arguments. The framework of the case and the argument should preemptively explain to me what I should prefer this *type* of argument over or against a practical argument (an independent reason to prefer you). This usually involves rhetorically and strategically outlining the importance of this principle because of its moral/value primacy (i.e., what is the principled impact to disregarding this argument). This said, winning your principle should not depend on you winning a prior practical argument.

5. Regrets motions are some of my favorite motions, but I find that teams really struggle with these. You are debating here with the power and retrospect and hindsight. To this end, watch out for arguments that say something is bad because it “will cause X;” rather, arguments should say this thing is bad because it “already caused X.” This does not mean that we cannot access conversations about the future in regrets motions—but we need to focus the majority of our framing on actually analyzing why an *already present/happened* event or phenomena is worthy of regret.

__________________________

LD & Policy Paradigm: Long story short "you do you." Details are provided. I'll listen to just about anything done well. Though I dislike tricks & am not a great judge to pref for theory debates. Some of these sections are more applicable to either LD or Policy but that should be intuitive.

General: I am very much a "flow" judge. Signposting is crucial. I do not extend arguments or draw links on my own. If you do not tell me and paint the story for me I will really despise doing the work for you.

Speaks: I am not afraid to give low point wins. The quality of the argument will always outway the persuasion that you use. It is ridiculous to vote for a team because they sound better. I will penalize racist, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist or ableist speech with low speaks. I don't disclose speaks. This seems arbitrary. I'm not confident why the practice of disclosing speaks has become a common request--but I think this is largely silly.

Speed: I am fine with speed; though I am not fine with bad clarity. More the half of the spreading debaters I listen to seriously neglect diction drills and clarity. Rapidly slurring cards together and ignoring clear sign-posting does not allow as much time as you think for the pen to put ink on the flow. I cannot tell you how many debates I have judged in the last two years where the entirety of CX time is spent by the opponent's trying to figure out what the other debater just said. I will only yell "clear" twice if you are going too fast for me--clarity has only become more important in the world of online debating. Recently, if I reach the point where I have to either say clear (or type it in the zoom chat) debaters get visibly frustrated. You have to choose between a judge who is capable of flowing your material or your desire to go so fast even when incomprehensible. In non-Zoom debates, typically nothing is too fast so long as your diction is good. If you see me stop flowing or if you notice my facial demeanor change this is a good indicator that your speed is too fast with not enough clarity. *Note my Section on Online Debating*

Value debate: I love philosophical clash! View my comments under Framework. Morality is not a value. It's just not. It is descriptive; debate requires normative frameworks.

Framework: Framework is very important to a good debate. Value clash should start here. This comes with two caveats. 1) Know what your authors are actually saying. I am a Philosophy major. I might penalize you for running content that you misconstrue. 2) Be able to explain, with your own analytics, any dense framework that you run. I will default to comparative worlds unless told otherwise. Some level of intervention is required on the part of the judge unless the framework debate is carried all the way to the 2AR--don't make me intervene. Make sure you return to the framework debate! (Especially important for me in LD)

Theory: You do you. Not a fan of frivolous theory, tbh; but you're in charge (more or less). Make the interp clear and the violation clear. I want to be clear here though: I do not enjoy theory debates, I think the proliferating practice of theory debates and competing underviews is net-bad for the activity. Additionally, if theory is a consistent leg of your strategy as a debater, that is fine, just do not pref me. I will not be a good judge for your preferred strategy. I'll also concede here that I am really poor at analyzing tricks debates and I am not a fan of the practice of lists of theory spikes--debate should be, at its core, about engagement not tricks for evasion. This is not to say that I have no understanding of how to adjudicate competing interps or theory debates, but it is not my comfort zone and I dislike the practice.

Cross-X: I flow cross-ex. I do consider it a substantive portion of the debate and cross-ex is binding. I believe that too many debaters waste their cross-ex time by desperately trying to get some understanding of their opponent's case because of the increasing absurdity of some case strategies and/or the lack of clarity that accompanies some speed. There are fundamentally three types of overarching cross-x questions: 1) Clarification, 2) Rebuttal, 3) Set-up/Concession; they rank in weakness/effectiveness from 1-3, with 1 being a non-strategic use of time.

Plans/CPs IN LD: This is fine. I will not usually listen to a theory debate on plans bad or CP bad for LD. PICs are fine. Once again, If you do it right you are fine. Again: If your strategy is to run a theory argument against a CP, a Plan, a PIC, or the like I may not necessarily be super happy about this *See my section on theory*. Debate is about engagement, not evasion--but I will listen to anything to the best of my ability.

K's: Good K debates are wonderful! Bad ones are the worst debates to watch. I love to see something Unique but relevant if you default to K. Please very clearly tell me what the Alt looks like; "vote neg" is not an alt!!! You gotta give me some function beyond “give me the ballot.” I am comfortable with most critical theory and post-modern scholarship. In particular, I have well-established academic training in phenomenology-informed critical theory, metaphysical frameworks that take strong ontological positions, and Deleuzian scholarship writ large. I can draw the links for you; Please do not make me. If you choose to run a critical theory, you should understand it well. I have experience working with critical theory and have worked alongside Dr. George Yancy firsthand on Critical Race Theory--I cannot stress this enough: good K debaters do their authors and their authors' scholarship justice by understanding the primary texts and scholarship inside and outside of the round. If your only exposure to a K author is a list of cards, you are philosophically unequipped to meaningfully engage in that author's scholarship, and unprepared for a good K debate.

This in no way means that you have to be a PhD student on Baudrillard to run a Baudrillard K, it just means you have to actually do your homework and trust your reasonable knowledge of the case-dependent scholarship because you didn't take shortcuts in understanding the K-Author, and your main textual engagement with the K-Author goes well beyond a series of cards, especially cards someone else cut.

Evidence: Be ethical with your evidence. This is serious stuff.

Weighing and Impacts: Spell out the voters for me. It's that simple. If you give me an impact calc, that is super beneficial for you.****When I give my RFD in prelims, you are more than welcome to ask questions. However, if you argue with me or begin to debate with me, I will give you a 20 on speaks--no joke Do not waste my time.

* I will not tolerate any rhetoric that is racist, sexist, or homophobic. Taking morally repugnant positions is not in your favor.

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

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 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!

jordan.berry@mps.k12.al.us

P.S. All this extinction stuff is just debaters trolling, right?

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.

Hey everyone! My paradigm is not that complex, but if you have any questions please ask before the round starts.

CCHS '20

NYU 24'

add me to the email chain: louisciano1@gmail.com

Simple Answer: I'm a flow judge who can understand circuit args if you over-explain them a tad more then you usually would.

Back round info:

I did LD for four years of high school mostly at the local level. I am from North Carolina so I am mainly used to traditional debate. I debated on the national circuit mostly for fun..

Speaks:

I'm generous. Don't be mean.

CX:

Clarification questions are ok, but not the purpose of Cross. I think cross can make or break a round because it shows who knows the material better. If someone is wasting your time, tell them to stop. If they don't I will notice.

Speed: ok with speed

prep-time:

Cards: Prep starts when they show you the card. You have to run the clock when you get the card.

Questions: It's ok to ask questions during prep, but do it more for clarification than anything, I'm not going to flow these, so don't be like "my opponent said this during prep". Also, make sure both of you are ok with it before the round starts.

Framework:

I default to util unless you tell me otherwise. I basically only ran util in high school, so if you have a really confusing framework you might want to warrant it a lot (sorry). That doesn't mean only run until. Please mix it up just make it good.

Arguments:

warrant your arguments. So many people just spit out a bunch of random evidence without a warrant. If you do this, I will give it little credibility and won't take it as super good evidence. If your opponent doesn't call it out, that still doesn't mean you win the ballot.

Theory:

I am not super familiar with theory, so it might be a little hard for me to evaluate it. That being said if there is clear abuse, run it, and warrant why. I will vote off of theory if I think you used it correctly. If you are going against a traditional kid don't run theory to just win the round. I will vote off of it, but I won't give you high speaks.

K Debate:

I never ran K's in high school, but I really like them. That being said, Please make sure the K is topical and not just some generic K. When I see that I see someone being lazy. Don't be lazy and write original arguments. Again, not super familiar with K's, but I will do my best to evaluate them.

Phil:

I'm pretty familiar with it, but if you say someones name don't expect me to have read all their books. Again just make it clear for me.

If you have any other questions, please ask.

SOOOOOOO TRAD.

About Me:

She/Her

Names I'll answer to: "Angela" is preferred. "Ms. Duggins" is fine.

I am a former college assistant coach and am currently a communication instructor and third-year PhD student in communication and performance.

Feel free to email me with any accessibility accommodation requests ( angela.duggins@siu.edu ).

How I Judge:

I always try to adapt to the weighing mechanism or judging criteria offered in the round.

I keep flow using shorthand. I'm not a fan of spreading, but I can keep up.

I will comment on (culturally mindful) diction and posture for your learning, but it won't factor in to final decision.

I do not tolerate massive facial expressions or pronounced head shaking with the intent of distraction while someone else is speaking. It will bring your speaker points way down.

I will not tolerate personal attacks on your opponent, outright racism, ableism, sexism, or other bigotry. "You people" style blanket statements are never effective. If I notice a potential bias in your argument that you may not be aware of, I will comment on the ballot.

I don't stick around to talk after rounds because I need to write my feedback while I still remember it. It's not that you don't matter. It's an adaptation I have to make.

What I look for:

Clarity. Clear, well-signposted arguments that follow a logical progression. Clear linkage between each point and the resolution and/or thesis.

Courtesy. Respect your opponent's time. Stay audience focused. Define terms that need defining. (Aside: Professionalism does not have a set look or sound) (Second aside: I don't need theatrical greetings at the top of each round, but I'm okay with it if you want to practice)

Creativity. Within reason and with respect for your fellow humans, I encourage you to explore creative arguments and integrate your knowledge of your passions outside of debate.

Advice:

Maintain audience focus. Legitimately care about whether or not those listening understand your position. If you focus on making what you say clear to them, you will focus less on yourself. This will make you a stronger speaker (and it's a great way to fight stage fright).

Triggers/Content:

I have no triggers to disclose. Be mindful of your opponent and others in the room.

A note on plagiarism:

If every single one of your points and sources is a direct copy of a Last Week Tonight or Patriot Act segment, I will notice.

Hey Prattville guys, excited for y’all and wish you the best of luck! I haven’t updated this paradigm in quite a long time, and tbh I’ve had a lot of tests this week sooooo…If you want to know the elevator pitch of my judging paradigm, it’s listed below. If you want the detailed version of my paradigm, check out Michael Fain’s paradigm. We agree on 99.9% of things when it comes to judging, except I don’t mind extempted theory (as long as it’s good and formatted:-). I’m also a little more open to reasonability warrants and truth>tech than he is, and I really like phil. Other than that, relax, have fun, take a deep breath, and remember: no one would regret anything in the nature of an interference by the Archdeacon more than I. I trust it will not come to that. But, for the last time, where are your goloshes? The thing is too bad, especially after what uncle said.

————————————————————————————————
I’ll keep it simple

da’s=yum

speedy=needs speech doc (jee0020@auburn.edu)

T=plz

dad jokes=37.58473829 speaker points

cp’s=cool

plans=might as well

k’s=eww, but sure [please don't run a k-aff tho]

framework=i. love. it.

theory=better be legit, I love my reasonability, so make the interps good

condo=more than one or two and i get reeeeeeeeeaaally sympathetic for the aff

anything I’m forgetting?=ask me!

Summary=my decision matrix rests on who won framing. once i determine what fw to use, i evaluate offense. once i evaluate offense, i make my decision.

I don't like to be confused - give me clear voting issues. If I am confused, I'll probably default to impacts / policy-maker or a simple morality question of what the right thing is to do. Speed is okay, and I'll try to follow, but speed with ridiculous breathing is obnoxious. Speed without any change in delivery for tag lines is hard to follow and hard to flow. And again, speed with an argument I'm not expecting and trying to learn is counterproductive. You can say "it's on the wiki" to your opponent all you want, but I don't feel any obligation as a judge to go read your case. Do the communicative work and teach me.

If you're going to run something unexpected (i.e. something a little squirrely or a blatantly non-topical or niche argument) or a kritik that I might not have heard before (well, any kritik, really), put in the work to explain it to me. I like learning stuff, otherwise I wouldn't spend my weekends doing this. What I don't like is being yelled and spread "at" about a philosophical premise I've never heard of before. Dumb it down for me a bit, take it a little slower, and I'll gladly come along for the lesson.

Some pet peeves (certainly not voting issues, but a paradigm is here for me to air all my complaints, right?)

- pointless off-time road maps, particularly in PF and LD. The only reason you'd need to give me this is if you're going in an unexpected order

- statements like "my opponent made a key mistake" - don't critique your opponent's performance for me. Convince me on the actual issues we're debating.My RFD may be dependent on a mistake made by a debater, but the voters you give me should be impacts in the context of the topic at hand.

- standing/sitting around while opponents "look for" evidence, saying that you'll start your prep time once they give you the evidence - always have your own evidence ready to go, and if your opponent doesn'thave it ready to go, ask them to give it to you ASAP, while you go ahead with prep time or your speech - if they are unable to produce the evidence, go after them in your next speech for that - DON'T hold up a round "waiting for evidence"

If you're reading this for Policy specifically: I didn't compete in Policy, but I've been coaching it off and on for a little over a decade, and I've judged frequently at NSDA and NCFL. That said, the circuit I coach in is fairly limited in terms of competition (like fewer than 10 teams at most tournaments), so my approach to policy tends to be pretty traditional, and I understand the event and the stock issues, but I'm not super familiar with kritiks or whatever passes for "progressive" arguments on "the circuit." (And if you can't tell by the quotation marks, as a coach in a small state focusing on just getting kids to competition, I'm a little disdainful of the elitism of "the circuit.") That said, I'm willing to listen to anything and willing to vote on anything, but you need to do the work to explain and teach me. It may be harder to get my vote with a kritik or anything else outside the realm of typical stock issues if you don't clearly explain the impacts of your argument and give me a nice Aff/Neg world comparison.

If you're reading this for LD: I didn't compete in it. I've coached it off and on, though not as much as PF and Policy. I'm going to lean pretty traditional for LD, just given my limited background and the circuit my students compete in. That doesn't mean I won't vote on plans or kritiks, but you're going to have to convince me. My default mode approaching LD is that I should be focusing on a value and criterion debate supported by some straightforward contentions, and I'm going to need a little help doing the mental jump into plans or kritiks. I'd certainly rather hear a framework debate about the values presented in the round than a framework debate about whether or not LD should allow plans, but I'll reluctantly follow along with whatever (cross apply my notes above for Policy, I guess.)

If you're reading this for Public Forum: I've coached it quite a bit, including teams that have broken at NSDA and won moderately large regional tournaments. I've also judged at nationals and major regional tournaments. I strongly object to the idea of paradigms in Public Forum debate. Access for students is a broadly discussed issue in Speech & Debate, but we need to remember that access for judges, especially volunteers, is just as important. Demanding paradigms in a debate event meant by design to be accessible to the public is, in my humble opinion, the wrong way to approach this event. I'm not exactly a "lay judge," but you should approach me in a public forum round, for the most part, as if I were a lay judge. Be organized and clear. Don't spread. Don't play games, especially when it comes to evidence and prep time. Give clear voters and an easy-to-understand Pro world vs. Con world layout.

email: faindebate@gmail.com

‘24 State Update:

Speed < Clarity - I’ve lost hearing in my left ear so make my life easier by sending clear speech docs for every speech (don’t just arbitrarily decide to not send A2 docs you’ve compiled mid round).

Read whatever you want. I prefer theory over most args. I am not as involved with debate as I used to be so changes in meta or wording are going to go over my head.

I prefer theory to most args andgood clash makes my life easier. I am a firm believer that it is the debater’s responsibility to be both clear from a speaking perspective but also clear in what their arguments mean. Done are the days where I do the work for you and sweat over if my scim reading important philosophical texts is enough to understand complex concepts. Any phil based argument should be explained so that someone new to debate understands what it means.

Specific questions about how I judge should be asked before the round.

My threshold for voting on hidden tricks is really high now. Almost to the point where you’d have to spend 50% > in a speech collapsing to it.

I don’t disclose. I’ll write individual feedback and my email is posted if you have questions.

Tabula Rasa

Lincoln Douglas Debaters: I love to see a strong and continuous link to your Value and Value Criterion throughout your case. I judge by the flow, and do not mind spreading, but will not be able to fairly judge the round if I cannot understand you while spreading. Please be aware of your time, and be respectful during cross. This is not a Presidential Debate. Best of luck, Natalie

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.

Let's have a great round!

I debated Policy for 6 years (2014-2020), so I’m pretty much fine with anything. Also did some PF and LD. I’ve also been out of debate for a few years though and have little topic knowledge. Don’t be offensive. I mostly read topical affs and was predominantly policy debater on the neg. I am fine and familiar with Kritiks, but it wasn’t my go to 2NR strategy. I love T debate and theory, but that very much does not mean RVIs or tricks, which I will generally not vote on.

Prep ends when you hit send on the email, not before.

Add me to the Email Chain: beh2024@stanford.edu

I'm a tab judge and am completely open to judging based on how the debaters tell me to. I am open to all types and styles of arguments, from topicality to Kritiks. If debaters say nothing about the framework used in the round, I will default to a policy making framework, if you run something like a performance aff, etc., I expect you to flesh-out framework for me. At end of round I'm evaluating your offense/defense vs. your opponents. This is the easiest way for me to judge the round, with as little intervention as possible, I'm looking to hear generally how the aff is a net improvement over the status quo. From the negative I'm looking to hear how the aff is a net negative, or how it fails to affirm the resoultion.

General:

Did Policy and LD in high school. PF for some time as well. My preferences as far as CX and LD are pretty similar. Did policy and parli in college. Coached LD and Policy in the past. Arguments that I frequently had students run were obscure kritiks, hard-policy affs, impact turns. I have always been a huge believer in the linebyline.

As far as policy, I ran policy arguments more than kritikal arguments, but as I got later in my career developed more of a preference for the K. That said, I really love good policy debates.

On the K, I expect some time to be spent on framework if it's expected for me to evaluate it through something other than the traditional way. I've been judging a lot more kritikal rounds in LD and CX than I have in the past. Frequently I find that when i vote for kritik debaters it's because they do a better job on the k-proper/linebyline debate as well as framework. Especially so if they are making good link-level arguments(not generic), RTB args. and k turns case. Explain how you get "solvency" or offense off-of the Alt. Being nebulous about the alt is generally a bad thing and frequently issues arise in k debate if this is neg strategy. I welcome the 1-off k strat, or k-affs.

Used to go for T a lot. That said, I usually advise debaters to go for T if there's an abuse story. In general have a high threshold for voting on T. If neg, extend that t is a voter, and internal link it to fairness, education, etc.

I assume condo is cool. I assume PICs are cool. I even think multiple CPs are cool (you would have to win on the theory level if Aff contests multiple CPs). Perms I assume are ok.

I encourage you to read theory if you want. I enjoy meta-debates. I especially enjoy if you put a lot of your own work into it.

Disads, you win me over if you run specific links or run multiple disads with different terminal impacts. Aff gets points for putting offense onto disads or explaining how case outweighs, or how aff solves the disad.

Affs get wins from me when they kill it on the case debate. Affs get some lee-weigh in the tight rebuttals if they're efficient and avoid drops.

I like offense from both sides. Somewhat related: recently I've found myself voting on presumption if aff drops the ball. I guess this makes some statement about what aff is obligated to do, namely defend the resolution by proving it true via 1ac. If there's some late level question about the round I may be looking at the viability of presumption. If neg tells me to vote on it, I may if there is some doubt about what aff is doing, and whether they're hitting the threshold.

Stylistic/ other things:

I am very decent keeping up with high speed.I flow the analytics as best as I can. That said, if you rush through standards one after the other, I may miss something. Adjust your pace, sign post more, be extra clear here. Generally though, I can count on two or three fingers the number of times a debater has gone too fast on theory for me.

It is very helpful to tell me what is offense and defense, this just avoids the round getting too muddy and means I adjust your speaks upward for communicating better, and for better understanding how your arguments function.

In rebuttals I generally expect things to get more big picture, in the 1ar and 1nr with drops being pointed out. I expect some level of pre-empting your opponents arguments esp. if you are the 2nr. And then finally, I expect impact calc, weighing, and some sound defense strategy (impact mitigation, timeframe, risk, magnitude, etc).

Speaks

I sometimes give out 30's but generally best speakers at any given tournament get in range of 29.5-29.9. I try to keep in mind the level of competitiveness of the tournament when giving speaks, but also, try to give consistent speaks.

Things that impact me giving high speaks:

Lack of prep taken/ good use of prep time.

Good strategy.

Being fast and efficient. Avoiding rehashing stuff that you're obviously winning and instead explaining the weight of that argument and moving on. Knowing what your cards say without having to go look.

Flowing. If cross-x is asking what number 6 argument opposing team made in the speech, I'm assuming your not flowing.

Numbering arguments, clear sign-posting, overviews, underviews, impact calc, roadmaps, referring to cross-x.

Clarity and not just looking at computer the whole time. Being sufficiently loud.

Good use of cross-x, which is underrated. I'm not sure why people don't do this, but in cross-x you can read opponent's evidence, ask about warrants in the card (sometimes they're not there), and author quals.

Kicking arguments strategically or going for something unconventional.

Using logic, analyzing evidence (looking for warrants in the cards), or a good line-by-line. Also, if neg: covering the 1AC, as opposed to generic off-case heavy strats. On case argumentation seems to be a dying art, which is sad, but as the neg if you do a good job covering case in my book it goes a long way. Aff: being super organized, grouping arguments, etc, especially in rebuttals. Handling the 2ac well is also something that helps. If you're doing a 2ac without prep and the speech is super-methodical I'm going to notice.

Being polite to opponents. Being aggressive is ok, but use best judgement.

Having fun, making jokes or demonstrating your knowledge of the topic.

I like impact turn debates and conversely impact defense, these are a great way to deviate the round from typical tropes, and can be very engaging.

I will never give you an L if I didn't like your way of debating or what you said. But if you require me to somewhat intervene in the round because of a poor debate I will give low point wins. I've given low point wins before to teams that did the better job strategically but had issues articulating things. If you cross the line as far as politeness, again, I will give VERY low speaks. Generally though, that's only happened 4-5 times in 8 years of judging for me.

LD

LD has gotten more policy-oriented. I have no issue with this. I do see some strategic issues if a 1ar spends the majority of the speech reading cards. Conversely I see issues with a 1nc with too many cards and not enough of a linebyline.

I don't think I've ever evaluated/ decided a round off a framework flow unless it had something to do with a K/ K aff being ran. You can concede framework if you want I just need to how your offense gets some access to some framework. What I'm suggesting is not undercovering contention level arguments and the linebyline.

Something that really makes it easier for me to evaluate the round is organization: numbering arguments, roadmaps, signposting, overviews, underviews. Being very clear about where you are on the flow at any time.

There is a tendency for blippy arguments to be hidden in the framework, or as underviews. the only way I can vote on them is if they are extended and impacted out.

I'm really not sure what has happened on the cutting edge of LD since getting out of high school. I know that theory/ framework debates have gotten to be more commonplace, with the utility of some of this theory questionable at best. Since then I've judged a lot of theory heavy, k heavy and policy rounds; i would say I have not judged many of these "tricks" rounds. Arguments are arguments, and they all function the same way, generally, what I'm suggesting is avoid the buzzwords and tell me the function of the argument.

As far as theory, I have voted on all sorts of theory arguments, but they have to be impacted, and i have to know how they are voting issues. Can't ever remember voting on disclosure theory.

PF

Usually i vote for the team that communicates better, of course they should be making the better arguments, but communication and persuasion are so important. In rebuttals I need to know about drops and hear some sort of weighing. I'm not in the camp that wants a card for every argument, speech times are already so short in PF. Go as fast as you want but realize that going faster may just make the debate more messy.

If you want to know what you can do to have a better chance at winning: extend evidence, talk about warrants, compare your evidence to your opponents'.

Congress

As a debater I had a lot of success in congress. I view congress as being an adversarial, somewhat extemporaneous event where you make good arguments backed by evidence and logic. Knowledge of parliamentary procedure is a definite plus, and I am looking for engagement and responsiveness regardless of what speech it is in the cycle. In other words, clash matters highly in congress, especially because speeches can tend to get stale pretty quickly if there are not (new) original arguments being made.

Debate Ethics

I prefer to not be involved in email chains or document sharing but sometimes I slip up and look at the speech documents. Avoid clipping cards--this is a breach of debate ethics and could result in loss of the round if there is a repeated pattern of doing it. I prefer that debaters self-police any ethical issues, and direct my attention to the issue while the round is happening, then I'll try to resolve the issue.

dont be stupid

Email: caitlynajones1@gmail.com

Pronouns: (she/her)

Berkeley:

I have done no topic research. Assume I know nothing

I debated PF for 4 years

• If you want me to vote on it, it needs to be in the summary and the final focus

• Please don’t just yell cards at me. Some analysis please

• If there’s an evidence misconduct problem, I’d rather you point out the issues with your opponent’s interpretation of evidence during your speeches, but I’ll call for a card if you tell me to.

• Any concessions in cross need to be in a speech for me to flow it

• Don't Spread at me. If I need a case doc to follow you, it's too fast.

• I'm not flowing anything after the 10-second grace period

VCX: I want to see good debating. I appreciate strong cases and find merit to traditional approaches to debate, but I appreciate more progressive forms of debate as well. As long as there is a strong understanding between you and your opponent, I'm fine with most anything. I do expect good signposting and appreciate a roadmap before the speech. I vote for the better argument, which usually comes down to strong cost-benefit analysis, impact calculus, timeframe, etc.

VLD: I want to see value/criterion clash. I want to see clash in general. I have seen debates with little to no clash, and in doing so it makes the job harder for me because I have to extend arguments for debaters. I should not have to extend crucial arguments for you. I usually vote on what is said, not what could have been said and wasn't. Please make sure to go through the flow and point out arguments in your favor. I find that I can be a very stock stock issues judge, but that doesn't mean anything not stock is not something I will vote for. If you give me a good argument with a valid basis and explain the significance of the argument, I will vote on it.

NLD/NCX: I was a novice debater once. I know if you get confused or don't have a complete grasp of debating yet, especially in the first couple of tournaments. Make sure you have a good foundational knowledge of your case. I want to see you do your best in coming up with arguments on the fly during rebuttals. Make sure you try your best to go through the flow and really do a good impact calc or value clash.

Hello everyone,

I'm Ravi Nataraj, a current junior in chemical engineering at Auburn University. In a past lifetime (high school), I've led the Hoover High LD Debate Team and have judged many tournaments over the past 3 years.

To win the round and ultimately appeal to me, you don't need to do much. Speak slow and loud so I may write legibly. If you spread (sometimes acceptable) or yell gibberish at me, I will not be able to interpret the chicken scratch I've written. Spread if needed for your case ONLY, but try not to for other sections.

LD is the pinnacle of philosophical debate, so value and criterion are EXTREMELY important. Link all cards back to framework heavily. If the opponent proves a card doesn't connect back to framework, you will likely lose that card. I still value card to card debate as it factors into the final "scale" I use.

Because its LD, analytical is preferred over empirical evidence, but understand they go hand in hand. Here, it's worth noting the key difference between LD and PF is the use of philosophy.

Lastly, please don't run anything weird like disadvantages or kritiques (with a k or c?). Actually, kritiques are fine (state the premise) but I'd prefer you don't run it.

That's all and good luck!

I was an LD/Congress debater for three years (2016-2019) and mostly competed at local tournaments, but I have experience with bid/national circuit tournaments as well. I'm pretty much here because of a combination of nostalgia and an obligation to give back to an activity that gave me so much.

Some wisdom looking back:

Don't be afraid to take up space. What you have to say matters! That being said, you can be assertive without putting down your opponent.

Debate about what you care about! Do you care about women's issues? Climate change? Access to healthcare? Find a way to relate the topic to what you deeply care about. It will make research so much more interesting and will often result in unique arguments that can be strategically favorable.

Vestavia Hills '19

Berry College '22

she/her (they/them pronouns are ok)

Email: snelson001923@gmail.com Feel free to email me for whatever, my debate resources (though not many) are your resources. I'm always down to chat about science, medicine, and environmentalism :)

Online Tournaments: Speech docs are a must!! Even if you’re not spreading, I probably won’t be able to hear you as clearly as you'd like; I've heard plenty of rounds where someone was cutting out every few seconds.

I think defaulting to they/them pronouns for everyone in the round is a pretty good practice (but not a voting issue). If you prefer something else, let me know or put your pronouns in your tabroom profile.

Any argument that I deem racist, sexist, homophobic, classist, ableist etc. will result in an immediate drop. Debate and civil discourse often excludes the voices of disadvantaged groups, and arguments like these can further deter people of these groups from participating. I default to viewing the round as a microcosm of real public policy-making/discourse, so it should be a model of respect and tolerance despite the poor example set for us by current politicians.

Plagiarism or cutting cards in a way that changes their meaning (i.e. cutting out the word NOT from a sentence) will result in an automatic loss no matter what happened on the flow if I discover it. Less blatantly incorrect but still deceptive cutting will result in me not evaluating the card in the round and a possible reduction in speaker points. If you go for evidence ethics and lose it, I won't automatically vote you down, but I'll probably lower your speaks.

PF

I've only seriously debated PF at one (online) tournament, so take that as you will. I'm not 100% on the norms as far as what counts as a dropped arg (like how much you have to do on your own case in 2nd rebuttal), so I'll let the debaters set their own norms for these and tell me why making an argument at a certain point is abusive or not.

General Stuff:

Unless I'm told to do otherwise, I'll just evaluate under util. I'll have a high threshold to be persuaded to use another fw.

COLLAPSE AND WEIGH! I hate looking at a flow with 5 contentions where cards are pretty much at a deadlock and having to decide who won.

Evidence: Paraphrasing is ok as long as cards are available. If the entire round ends up being hinged on a card or two, then I might call for them before I write my ballot. If a team fails to present me or their opponents with a card within one minute of it being called for, I won't consider the evidence.

Long rant about progressive args:

It seems like PF is following the trend of other debate events in that is getting more and more tech. I've run Ks at an online PF tournament just for fun, but whether this kind of debate should become a norm in public forum is a difficult question to answer for me. For now, I'll set these standards:

Feel free bring up issues such as structural violence and even introduce framing that is not simply a "cost-benefit analysis", but I won't weigh it entirely before substance like "pre fiat impacts" usually are in tech rounds. If you don't read this and do run a K, I'll just weigh it like a contention and there will be a high threshold for me to weigh it first (it pretty much has to be completely conceded and extended cleanly). Also, I'll be more likely to evaluate Ks like set col, afro pessimism, fem, etc because I think that these are actually issues that policymakers should consider in real life. Ks like baudrillard or anprim won't get my vote in these rounds. I won't vote on tricks in actual PF rounds. I don't really see how tricks benefit policymaking skills, which is supposed to be the point of PF. For theory, I won't weigh theory that is frivolous or dumb (shoe theory, cough cough). If the violating school is not on the wiki, I will not evaluate disclosure interps. Running disclosure on teams that don't even know that the wiki exists is horrible for small schools. If there is clear abuse in the round (like running a plan or counterplan or some other arg that inherently limits your ability to respond, including Ks and tricks), I'll weigh theory against that pretty heavily because it's the only way to check back on that abuse.

LD

I started LD at my school really just so that I wouldn't have to debate with a partner, but I ultimately fell in love with all of the layers and intricacies of LD rounds. Stock rounds are fine; they're more accessible, after all. But really, I love the meta aspect of LD that allows us to take a step back and address the assumptions that shape the round and our world through kritiks or theory. Also, introducing layers just makes my job as a judge easier most of the time.

General (if you don't want to spend forever reading all of my ramblings, just read this section)

Quick Pref Guide:

LARP: 1

Theory (basic): 1

Ks (in the direction of the topic): 2

Trad: 2/3

Tricks: 3

Ks (identity, hostage taking, not intrinsic to the topic): 3/4

Phil: 4 (dumb it down for me)

High Theory: 5/strike

I'll weigh T>theory>K>case (this is pretty basic, there will be rare instances where this differs based on how bad the top layer was or if I'm persuaded that one layer has more out of round impacts).

Tech>Truth

Please give me an off-time roadmap and signpost! Taking a couple of extra seconds can be the difference between me voting on your argument and me not even being able to put it on the flow.

Speed: If you're spreading or basically spreading under the guise of "speaking fast", just be safe and make an email chain. That way, there's no question of whether I can clearly hear and evaluate your arguments. The last thing I want is to have to leave things off my flow because I couldn't understand what you were saying.

CX: BINDING!! But also, I think it’s kinda a weak arg if you use something vaguely implied in cross as a link.

On progressive args: Accessibility to debate is (believe it or not) pretty important. Lincoln Douglas in Alabama has been slowly dying (and limited to only a few schools), while other events (PF, Congress, IEs), have generally been doing pretty well. The reason for this is that LD is inherently less accessible; the layering permitted in LD rounds requires a lot of education and resources that many debaters do not have. LD is cool in that you get to run this obscure stuff, but the point of LD is to DEBATE, as it is called Lincoln Douglas DEBATE. If you're debating against someone who has less resources and had no means to learn how to respond to these args, running tricks or high theory is going to make for an extremely unproductive round. Being able to LARP debate is still a very important and foundational skill (even if it seems like it's not because it's usually the bottom layer). If you can't get a ballot in a LARP round in this context, then you probably didn't deserve it from me in the first place. If you make it so that the other side cannot engage, I'll dock your speaks (think like 26 max), and you can say goodbye to a speaker award or a good seed for break rounds.

LARP

I was a big LARPer in high school (really because I wasn't taught much outside of LARP debate and learned more about the other stuff as a judge). If you want to limit the chance of me screwing you over with my decision, a LARP round is probably the way to go.

In LD, framework is key. It tells me how to evaluate the round, so take time to explain why I should prefer your value/value criterion/ROTB and why your case fulfills it. I would prefer that your criterion has an author explaining why it achieves your value, but if it doesn't, I'll buy analytical arguments. I'll default to util until I'm given any other fw.

CPs: I loved running these and would pretty much have an obscure CP for every topic in high school. But, there is a difference between an obscure advocacy and an abusive one. I'm very likely to prefer theory if it's run well against a PIC or conditional CP.

Plans: If your plan does not maintain the original intent of the resolution or is extra-topical, I'll prefer good theory from the neg. Keep in mind that I'm relatively a stickler for topicality, but spec as long as it fulfills the res is fine.

Disads: Don't be sloppy with the links. Tell me why you o/w on magnitude/probability.

Kritiks

I think that Ks are a very important aspect of debate in that we get to dig deeper and question the underlying societal assumptions that inform public policy making and debate. I am more familiar some of the more common ones (capitalism, biopower, anthro, afro-pessimism, queer-pessimism, fem, security etc.) I'll also vote on hostage taking/satire if extended throughout as long as the other side doesn't point out a perf con (that's the biggest weakness I see in those rounds) or have a good turn etc. Don't assume that I'm familiar with some obscure K. If you want to run something that is not on this list, PLEASE ask me about it before round. This is basically me saying that it's your responsibility to make sure that I will be able to vote on what you read. Also, I'm probably not the best person to judge a K vs K round. Because I believe that it is the affirmative's duty to be topical, it'll be hard for you to make me evaluate some K affs, but if you've learned anything from reading this, I don't have a lot of black and white rules for how a debate should go. I'll ultimately weigh the round based on the rules that are established by the debaters, so see theory below.

Performance/identity Ks are cool, but again I'd prefer that you in some way link your advocacy to the topic if you're running these on the AFF, but I won't gut check non-intrinsic K affs. Don't just go up there and read a story or say "because I'm ___ vote for me" (it has happened). Explain how my vote actually indicates a paradigm shift. Reading these well is probably one of the best ways to get high speaks from me.

If you're going for the K, the method will be under harsh scrutiny. I'm super sympathetic to charity cannibalism args against id pol Ks, especially if you don't identify with the group that is the subject of the K. Shouldn't have to be said but just... don't exploit people's suffering for the ballot.

Theory

I'm a lot better versed in theory than I am in Ks. I like it a lot more than most debaters probably, but that doesn't mean that I love friv theory. See below:

Theory serves as a check on abuse in the round and is also important in terms of setting norms for debate as an activity. Theory is not something that should just be thrown at any argument for which you didn't prep or used as a weapon to waste your opponent's time by forcing them to respond to it in the next speech. If your opponent goes for the RVI in those cases, I'll probably give it to them. That being said, I don't know why so many judges hate RVIs, but I'm often willing to vote on them to deter frivolous theory. If your opponent calls for competing interps, you'd better have a counter-interp because lack of one can easily become a voting issue. I don't really prefer education or fairness, so feel free to run either. I'm more likely to buy "drop the argument", but if initiating theory required you to drop other substance in the round, feel free to run "drop the debater". Spikes are fine; I don't love them because they're kind of abusive, so any response to them at all by the other side will require you to spend some actual time explaining why the spike is good for debate in your next speech.

Things I want to see eventually if I'm going to evaluate theory as the top layer in the debate:

-An interp stating what debaters SHOULD do (not what they should not do)

-A clear violation linking specifically to what your opponent read

-A couple standards listing problems that the abuse causes/exacerbates in the round and how this practice prevents fairness and/or education

-Voters/paradigm issues: Tell me WHY promoting fairness or education is a prereq to the rest of the flow. Tell me whether I should drop the debater or the argument (drop the debater needs some kind of justification for why this abuse requires a deterrent that severe). I default to reasonability if nothing is specified but have a low threshold for evaluating competing interps.

Interps that I'll be especially sympathetic to:

-Any T framework

-Spec Good/Bad (nebel)

-PICs bad

-Condo bad

-no Alts bad

-severance perms bad

-NIBs bad

Tricks

If you're running tricks and say "what's an a priori", minus two speaks.

Tricks are pretty much dependent on truth testing framing (trying to make tricks a voting issue with comparative worlds framing is dumb, don't do it), so they're not as infallible as they may seem. I'll be receptive to tricks, but if you're debating against someone who knows what they're doing, you'll probably just end up kicking them and you will have really just wasted your own speech time. I'm not a big fan of NIBs, but I can't say that I'm not partially here to be entertained, so if you make the round entertaining with tricks or just anything unexpected, that'll be reflected in your speaker points. At the same time, if you're a big school debater running these against a small school debater or novice who doesn't even know what they are, your speaks will be docked a bit (see LD general).

Speaks

+0.3 for running something fem

-0.5 for disrespectful expressions while your opponent is speaking (I see this a lot between partners in PF)

+0.2 for a good pun (limited to only one addition of 0.2 points, please don't make me cringe)

+0.4 for some (ACCURATE) chemistry explanation. This would be cool, but you'd also probably waste some time doing this if you're going for the ballot. If you just want speaks, this is an easy bonus. I have had someone take advantage of this once, and it made my day.

-0.5 if it's pretty clear that you have no idea what your cards actually say

-1 if you're a big school debater and try to tell a small school debater what's good for them

*See LD General about progressive args and speaks

Points can be added subjectively for how entertained I was by your speeches.

If you have any questions about what to run, feel free to ask me before the round.

Flow judge

PF: I don't flow cross. Make sure to weigh.

Parli: I prefer on-case debate, but feel free to go somewhat fast. Please refrain from running Kritiks, and only run Theory when absolutely necessary.

Hey! I’m Albert Sanchez. In HS I did PF for a couple tournaments, LD for 3 years, and Worlds for 1 year. I’m in college on the American Parli team, where I run some IR/HIR stuff.

In terms of cases, I ran a lot of lay and some LARP stuff in HS. If you’re not sure what to run in front of me, ask yourself if my 8th grade sister would be able to understand your argument the way you read it. This goes for content and speed. Please don’t spread. I’m not perfect at flowing so if you really want me to catch on to something in the line by line please emphasize it. Flowing on a computer makes it easier to get stuff down tho so that’s a plus.

FAQ:

Will vote on spreading is bad. If you spread spreading is bad, I don't know what to tell you.

Stance on Ks? As long as I can understand them from what you tell me in the constructive, go for it. If it requires me to go read over the cards 10 times to understand what you're saying, don't read it.

Stance on LARP? Cool with it.

Stance on T/Theory? If there's clear abuse in the round, sure.

Email chain? Always for it. I'll give you my email in round if you're going to start one.

Time yourselves!

Speaks are silly and arbitrary so I'll be as transparent as possible (DOES NOT APPLY TO WORLD SCHOOLS).

- You will start at a 28 pt minimum unless otherwise told by tab. You can only go up unless you are offensive in round, don't use up all your time (like you have 3 min left in the NC), or spread without clearing it with me and the opponent.

- I don't care about eye contact, posture, hand gestures, or stuttering

- Give me good signposts

- Roadmap before you start your rebuttals (AND FOLLOW THE ROADMAP YOU GIVE ME)

- In rebuttals, don't just read the name of the card. Summarize what it said.

- Write my ballot for me: In the last speech tell me what the round come downs to and why you win

- (If we're in person): If aff sits on my left and neg on my right without asking me, I will bump both your speaks. If only one does so, I'll only bump that person's speaks. If no one does so, you just start at the 28 pt minimum

Feel free to ask questions before or after the round. I’ll talk about the round (if I’m allowed to) but I’ll also answer questions about college debate and stuff in general.

EMAIL CHAIN: jsydnor@altamontschool.org -- all rounds should set up email chains before scheduled start time. I would like to be included.

--------

Former policy debater in HS and College. I come into LD from that background, and I love seeing where LD and policy are in communication with one another. While I'm familiar with K's, CP's, PICs, plan-focus debates, planless K Affs, T, Theory... I'm less familiar with some of the other arguments like high phil, a prioris, NIBs, etc. that are more well known in LD.

I am am open to most arguments, but I am unwilling to vote on arguments I don't understand enough to give a coherent RFD. The burden remains with the debater to make a sufficiently clear argument I can grasp and understand as a path to the ballot. I don't feel bad saying "I didn't understand this, so I didn't vote on it."

I don't buy into the argument division between "circuit" and "local" debate and that I should inherently discount arguments or styles because it's Alabama not a "national" tournament. Any kind of exclusion needs to be theoretically justified.

Speed: 7.5/10. Speed is fine but debate is still a communication-based activity and I'm a poorly aging millennial. Sending speech docs is not a substitute for clarity.

--------

-CP: I default sufficiency framing and will judge kick unless told otherwise. Would rather hear args about solvency deficit, perm, and issues with NB than rely on theory to answer.

-K: I think all forms of debate are great, but K's and K Affs offer something unique to the activity that enhances its pedagogical value. However, that doesn't mean I know your specific literature or that I am going to immediately buy what you're selling. I like close readings of the 1AC to generate links as quality critical work.

-K Affs: Go for it. I believe the Aff has to advance some contestable methodology beyond "res is bad, reject the res." I usually believe offense on method is the most interesting site for clash. T-USFG/FW isn't off the table as a true guaranteed generic response and can be a really strong option given the way some K teams write their 1AC.

-Theory: Not my favorite debate but I know it can be important/strategic. Go a little slower on this if you want me to get follow the intricacies of the line-by-line. I have some hesitation with the direction disclosure and wiki theory arguments are going, but I still vote on it.

-T vs Plan Affs --I believe plans have the burden to be topical, and topicality is determined by interpreting words in the resolution. If you read a plan that is not whole res then you should always go into the round proving you definitionally are topical. I generally believe analytic counter-interps (like mainstream theory debates on norms) and reasonability alone are not winning options. Has the Neg read a definition that excludes your plan? If yes, you have a burden to counter-define in a way that is inclusive of your Aff. I am very persuaded that, absent a sufficient "we meet," if the Aff cannot counter-define a word in the resolution that is inclusive of the plan then I should A] not consider the plan reasonable, even if reasonability is good, and B] no sufficient competing interpretation of the topic, which is an auto-win for the Neg. (K Affs can be an exception to most of this because the offense to T and method of establishing limits is different.)

- T vs K Affs -- Willing to vote on it insofar as you win that you've presented a superior model for debate and that voting for you isn't violent/complicit. I generally believe fairness is not an impact. I like strong answers to meta-level questions, such as Aff descriptions of what debate and proceduralism vs debate as a game/site for unique type of education and iterative testing of advocacies.

-Phil: You should assume I know 0 of the things necessary for you to win this debate and that you have to do additional groundwork/translation to make this a viable option. I've only seen a few phil debates and my common issue as a judge is that I need a clear articulation of what the offensive reason for the ballot is or clear link to presumption and thus direction and meaning of presumption.

--------

If you choose to not set up an email chain or a reasonable alternative and then waste a bunch of time during the round with, your speaker points will be capped at a 27.5. Debaters saying "I'm not spreading so we don't need to share" or, even worse, "I don't want your team to have my arguments" are huge pet peeves of mine. This activity is net better when you can look at your opponent's evidence, analyze it, and contest it. Calling for cards is not sufficient nor time conscious. Just send the doc with the evidence you're going to read in that speech before the speech.

Competed throughout high school in LD, Congress, and PF. LD and Congress the most.

I competed on local (AL) and national circuits. I am familiar with most forms of traditional and progressive debate. However, that does not mean I am well-versed in the literature you are reading. So, really explain your argument. I like any and all arguments (except ones that are inherently discriminatory, especially towards your opponent). If you make a logically valid argument, I can vote for it. I do not do well with speed, especially over zoom. Please go slow. I was never a big spreader in high school.

Fairness and accessibility are key. If your opponent can not understand speed, do not speed. Feel free to discuss levels of comfort with speed in the room prior to the round starting. Moreover, if your opponent does not understand the debate jargon you use and you fail to explain it, it will lower your speaks. I’m happy to listen to and vote for arguments about fairness. Good theory debates can be incredibly interesting but only when the theory can have a substantive impact on the debaters and the debate community.

While I will vote for any argument, I am predisposed to like heavy/substantive/deep/interesting philosophical arguments, that can include very progressive forms of debate. Pet peeve: do not run a counter plan if your opponent does not run a plan. That just has never and will never make sense to me. (Unless you explain why it does make sense REALLY well in round)

Email: jtorbert2000@gmail.com

Feel free to reach out with any questions. And please include the speech doc if there is one.