Hello! My name is Mikey (he/him) . I'm former high school debater from Colorado. I did 3 years of LD, during which I qualed for nats twice and collected 2 bids to the KTOC. I'm familiar with the PF, CX, and LD debate formats. Please add me to the email chain if you create one. Below I'll leave general paradigms with further details if you are interested.

Email: mdolph@lclark.edu

TLDR

Be courteous, under non circumstances will I vote for a racist, sexist, homophobic, classist, or oppressive argument. I love persuasive speeches, but that doesn't have to be your style. I'm fine with speed, so long as both debaters agree to it: and the debater who spreads, flashes their speeches. I'm a tab judge - but I also hate weak link-chains; so pick your poison. Dropped arguments are conceded, but that doesn't mean you auto-win. Please don't make me do more work then I should by leaving out voters/the role of the ballot. Please sign-post and finally, have fun:)

If this is a local tournament (or your PF) you don't need to read any more of my paradigm. Good luck in your round! Below I'll leave in depth paradigms for specific arguments if you're interested.

Trad

I'm a traditional LDer at heart so, I absolutely love good framework clash broken up into V/VC.

Phil

I love a good phil round, this is mostly what I ran in high school so I'm roughly acquainted with most theories. That means bonus points if you run something I haven't heard.

Larp/Policy

As long as you do impact calc this is a pretty solid strategy for the round. I find other argumentation styles more interesting, but that wont play a factor in my judging.

Kritiks

I love Ks, if you want to try out a K I'm the judge your looking for. As long as you can explain it well I'm cool with you running it.

Theory

If you run a T, make sure you opp actually links in. You have a heavy burden of proof, but on the flip side I tend to weigh Theory first. However, I am not a fan of theory as a time-suck argument. So if you run it, please be genuine.

Overview: Your last speech should write my RFD for me. If you want to win the debate, weigh impacts under the framework(s). Give me good clash - don't just talk past each other.

If you drop a point of your opponents, I consider it true in the round assuming they extend it.

For LD: If you don’t engage in framework, I’ll use your opponents. A winning framework does not mean you win the debate, but it certainly helps. Any argument that doesn’t link back to a criterion won’t gain you offense in the round. I’m a strong fan of any case/debater able to uphold both frameworks and criteria, if you do so properly and weigh under them you will generally win the round.

Speed: I’m fine with speed, but don’t spread.

Be polite.

Take a breath - you got this :)

No spreading, no k's - I'm a pretty traditional lay judge.

I also don't read cases you flash me. If you can't say it in a way I can understand, it just won't count.

CCHS'23

Cornell'27

Use alanmunschy@gmail.com for email chains.

Background: Did LD debate for 4 years

LD: I prefer trad debate.

Theory should be reserved for particularly egregious violations (e.g. condo, topicality; I don't think disclosure is egregious).

Speed is ok if your opponent is okay with it. Don't spread.

PF: I'm not too familiar with PF, I'll probably focus on the flow when evaluating rounds.

Anything else: don't go crazy. Clarity is important.

Ask me if you have questions.

My name is Madigan Petri and I'm currently a college student.

For my debate background: I debated in PF for four years in Colorado. I also competed in both national and international extemp. In 2021, I competed in world schools debate at the national tournament.

My belief is that PF and LD should maintain their intended forms: respectful, intelligent, and strategic. If you begin to debate like a policy debater, it will not reflect well on you and the odds of you winning are slim. I can keep up with speed to a certain point but if you become unintelligible I will stop flowing your speeches. I am a flow judge and will vote mostly off of the argumentation and organization. I also ask that you keep the debate respectful. I will not tolerate any hateful comments whatsoever. I understand (and encourage) aggression, but keep it within reasonable bounds. For sources I'll just say this: don't lie and have them available to send highlighted please.

Side note: theory. Please don't run a counterplan (illegal) or a K (annoying). If you begin an interpretive debate I will be extremely impressed and honestly I wouldn't know what to do. Keep the debate about the resolution for the sake of my sanity.

I don't require a second speaker frontline although it can be very helpful in keeping your arguments consistent.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask before the round. I will give oral reactions after the round including a decision if the tournament requests it.

I was a policy debateron the national circuit in the 1980's, before the internet and before Public Forum Debate. Four years of competitive policy debate has shaped my approach to the ballot, however I like the changes and variety that come with public forum. Evidence is like ammunition in a battle. You have to undertsand it and know how to use it, else it could backfire and create unintednded injury to yourself instead of your opponent. In the end, rhetorical flourish is not important as a demonstrated understanding of the topic, a solid ability to listen to your opponenet, undertand the premise of your case, and explain why your case and the supporting evidence justify a decsision in your favor.

My judging will primarily be based on your ability to directly refute the opponent's case and tell me exactly why I should vote for your side. I would like to see weighing and signposting done in the round so as to clearly show your impacts.