I am a senior in college studying engineering. I debated PF on the regional and national circuits back in high school.

My process for voting is as follows:

1. What's the most important issue/value in the round
2. Who holds the strongest link into that

Feel free to ask any questions before the round begins.

I am a former high school debater that has dabbled in everything. I’ve been judging for the past six years and have judged everything, but policy. I recently graduated with a degree in Anthropology, with a focus on cultural anthropology. I’m a pretty typical PF judge and will vote for the team with the most compelling argument, however, I do like a solid framework. As far as cross goes, I don’t care if you sit or stand—whatever is most comfortable for you works for me. I don’t like when you address me during cross because I feel like you should be focused on your opponents instead. My BIGGIE is DO NOT SPREAD. If you are going too fast, I will not flow the round and drop you. This is PF, not policy. I have an extensive speech background and will be pretty merciless when it comes to speaker points. Other than that, remember to be respectful during the debate. Things can get pretty heated sometimes, but that is no excuse for rudeness. If you say things during the round that that are sexist, racist, homophobic, etc., I will drop you immediately. Let’s be kind to one another and remember to have fun! I look forward to hearing some good debates!

If you're running an email chain, please add me: Andrewgollner@gmail.com

he/him

About me: I debated one year of PF and three years of policy at Sequoyah High, and I debated three year of college policy at the University of Georgia. I was a 2N that generally runs policy offcase positions but, especially earlier in my debate career, I ran many critical positions. I'll try to be expressive during the round so that you can discern how I am receiving your arguments.

Judge Preferences: On a personal level, please be kind to your opponents. I dislike it when a team is unnecessarily rude or unsportsmanlike. I am completely willing to discuss my decision about a round in between rounds, so please ask me if you want me to clarify my decision or would like advice. You can email me any questions you have.

FOR PF/LD:

I am primarily a policy judge. This means

1. I am more comfortable with a faster pace. While I don't like the idea of spreading in PF and LD I can handle a faster pace.

2. I am decently technical. If an argument is dropped point it out, make sure I can draw a clean line through your speeches.

3. I am less used to theory backgrounds in your form of debate, slow down and explain these.

4. Ask me any specific questions you have.

FOR POLICY:

I recognize that my role is to serve as a neutral arbiter without predispositions towards certain arguments, but as this goal is elusive the following are my gut reactions to positions. I strive to ensure that any position (within reason, obviously not obscene or offensive) is a possible path to victory in front of myself.

CP: I love a well written CP which is tailored to your opponent's solvency advocate and that can be clearly explained and is substantiated by credible evidence. If your CP is supported by 1AC solvency evidence, I will be very impressed. Generic CPs are fine, I've read a ton of them, but the more you can at least explain your CP in the context of the affirmative's advantages the more likely you are to solve for their impact scenarios.

DA: Make sure to give a quick overview of the story during the neg block to clarify the intricacies of your position. If, instead of vaguely tagline making a turns case arg like "climate turns econ, resource shortages", you either read and later extend a piece of evidence or spend 10 to 15 seconds analytically creating a story of how climate change exasperates resource shortages and causes mass migrations which strain nation's financial systems, then I will lend far more risk to the disadvantage turning the case. Obviously the same goes for Aff turns the DA. I will also weigh smart analytical arguments on the disad if the negative fails to contest it properly. I'm also very persuaded when teams contest the warrants of their opponents evidence or point out flaws within their opponents evidence, whether it's a hidden contradiction or an unqualified author.

T: I've rarely gone for topicality but I have become increasingly cognizant of incidents in which I likely should have. My gut reaction is that competing interpretations can be a race to the bottom, but I have personally seen many affirmatives which stray far enough from the topic to warrant a debate centered over the resolution in that instance.

K: I used to run Ks pretty frequently in high school but I run them far less frequently now. I'm likely not deep in your literature base so be sure to explain your position and your link story clearly.

FW: My gut feeling is that debate is a game and that it should be fair, but I have seen many rounds where the affirmative team has done an excellent job of comparing the pedagogy of both models and won that their model is key for X type of education or accessibility there of. However, I am persuaded that a TVA only needs to provide reasonable inroads to the affirmatives research without necessarily having to actually solve for all of the affirmative. I do find the response that negs would only read DAs and ignore/"outweigh" the case to be effective - try to add some nuance to this question of why negs would or wouldn't still need to grapple with the case.

Non-traditional Aff: I've always run affs with USFG plan texts, but that doesn't mean that these positions are non-starters. I will be much more receptive to your affirmative if it is intricately tied to the topic area, even if it does refuse to engage the resolution itself for whichever reasons you provide.

Theory: I generally think 2 condo is good, more than that and things start to get a bit iffy.

Most importantly, please be kind to your opponents and have a good time.

he / him

My email for the chain is hbharper8@gmail.com but also feel free to reach out with questions about your round / my RFD

tldr: I am okay with anything you run as long as you are respectful.

Fun Facts:

I did PF from 2015-19

I do not like to base my ballot only on disclosure theory or topicality, so you shouldn't make those your only voters.

I do not like when teams try changing the structure (speech times) of the round with theory.

I don't expect you to necessarily run a counter-interp against theory if you don't know how to do that. Just engage with the substance of their theory argument like any other argument.

I will probably tell your first speaker that they went for too much in summary.

I think in summary defense is sticky unless it was frontlined.

The second rebuttal should address the first rebuttal but I will accept responses in second sum as well - just no new turns.

No offensive off-case arguments in the second rebuttal.

Speaker points:

I appreciate funny taglines and puns when they are in good taste.

Yelling / being mean in cross will hurt your speaks.

History: I did PF debate during highschool, debated in the GA circuit and went to many National Circuit tournaments. I have been judging PF for a while now. I have been off the circuit for a little while though, and may not be knowledgeable about recent developments within the last year in regards to PF.

How I evaluate the round: I expect you to extend your arguments throughout the whole round. This means offense from the rebuttal needs to be extended through the Summary and Final Focus for it to be weighed in the round. I also do not like it when teams bring up something from rebuttal in the final focus without extending it through summary (called extending through ink), doing this will likely result in the argument being dropped off my flow.

Argumentation: I expect all arguments to be properly warranted and impacted with supportive evidence to go with it. However, don't just speak off cards.

If you want the argument to be important, then make sure I know that it is important.

This paradigm does not apply to New Haven UDL students.

I was a parliamentary debater in the New Haven Urban Debate League for four years, and I've debated on the YDA for the past two years.

For Policy, I have no experience, and I'm not used to fast debate. I also strongly value clarity, both in terms of speaking and in argumentation. Respect your opponents, especially during CX.

For LD, I can handle a reasonable amount of speed, but please do not spread. I value framework pretty highly. You can certainly still win even if I accept the other team's framework, but you'll have an uphill battle. Please provide explicit voters for the round, and be sure to weigh these voters in your rebuttals. I'll be flowing regardless, but this makes my job much easier. Do not use theory.

Good luck and have fun!

Please include me in the email thread: reid.laurens@gmail.com

Talk as fast or as slow as you like. Use any strategy you like. Always respect everyone's person and dignity.

My face shows what I'm thinking. If you're uncertain whether I'm following your argument, please connect the dots for me.

Judged middle school debates from 2015 to 2018. Connected to the Grady HS debate team through my niece, who debates policy with the Grady Jesters.

Personal philosophy: trying hard to follow stoicism, but sometimes lapse into nihilism.

BA in psychology from Georgia State University (Atlanta), 1978; MBA in international business from Regis University (Denver), 1999.

I have debated throughout the state and am pretty simple with my preferences. Speak at a decent pace, I can do speed just don’t spread or I won’t flow. I’m comfortable with lay or tech styles. Final focus should include what was in summary, don’t ever bring up new arguments because I won’t flow them.