I’m a current varsity debater for Marian High School and a senior. I like to think I’m tech > truth, but please make sure to clarify your link chains and extend all impacts. I should be familiar with the current debate topic, but that does not give you an excuse to not explain anything. I am fine with PF speed (no Policy spreading please), but don’t use it as a weapon to confuse your opponents.

Do:

- respect your opponents

- have fun and learn lots

- extend warrants and impacts

- weigh impacts

Don’t:

- be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, or any other -ist i forgot

- drop your stuff, if your opponents call you out, then you are done for :(

- drink Dr. Pepper, it is the bane of human existence, any drinking of Dr. Pepper will drop in an instant decrease in speaker points (but if you mention your hatred of Dr. Pepper, +.5 speaker points)

PF:

Crystallization is really important in the FF (Or really any speech). Please do it so it's easier for me what you find to be the biggest points in the round and what the worlds look like on each side of the flow. It's really persuasive and you should always do it.

Have clash with your opponents arguments and lay out exactly why they are wrong with warrants, claims, links, and impacts.

Be civil, and if you have any questions ask them before round :)

Judging: I have, thus far, only judged PF rounds. That is my comfort zone.

Speed: I can follow faster presentations, but if I miss a contention because I was taking notes on the previous contention, that's on y'all.

Numbers: I don't require facts, figures, and statistics. However, if one team uses them, cites them, and defends their validity if challenged then they will have an advantage over a team that does not. This being said, if these numbers accidentally reveal that the other team outweighs on magnitude, or probability, that's also on y'all.

Unconventionality: Original (strong) arguments are appreciated and effective. They have to make sense and they have to be supported by evidence. They also have to be relevant.

How I weigh: Beyond simply proving your point, I focus on whether someone's contention has been neutralized/negated/disproven/minimized (or demonstrated to be non-unique). I tend to favor probability over magnitude.

Warrants/Technical Arguments: Linked to unconventionality, if you make an argument that requires technical knowledge, you should try to briefly explain it. Also, if the feasibility/reality of a claim is not readily apparent, the warrant should come with a short explanation as to how it makes sense.

Hi guys! I was a 4 year PF debater at Millard North. I can understand theory if necessary, but I'm not too well versed so, if you're gonna read it, make sure you explain it very very well. If I don't understand it, I can't weigh it :)

Impact weighing is preferred please and thank you. I don't flow blippy extensions. Don't just "reread your case" in rebuttal, actually do some analysis. Rebuilding in first rebuttal is not necessary, no new args after second summary. Speaking speed is fine, if you're gonna go inhumanly fast, just send me the speech doc (kashish.poore6213@gmail.com) thanks. I don't flow cross, so if you have an important point, bring it up in speech. drop a turn and the arg flows over to the opponent :) so don't do it, just answer the damn thing, or explain why.

If you make me laugh i'll bump up your speaker points by 1-2 depends on how hard.

If you have anything to say after round, email por favor!

My last paradigm was pretentious and long winded, just like me, so hopefully this one is better.

GENERAL:

-28 ish and up is my usual speaker point range.

-I don't like post-rounding. I also don't like poor decorum in rounds. My speaks will reflect it.

-Debate is an educational event first and foremost. However, due to any number of extenuating circumstances (home life, healthy competitive drive, etc. etc.) I know that winning can be more important. I get it. Try to learn something and have fun and I'll try to make good decisions.

-I have a bad poker face sometimes. If I look bored and unengaged, I am. If I look surprised or intrigued, I am. Engage with me.

NPF:

PF is where I'm most comfortable, I've done it for roughly three years now. Some things I look for in rounds:

-I LOVE weighing, especially in novice. Novices don't do it enough. Tell me why your impact matters more and why it should be valued over your opponent's.

-I like condensing to voters, at the very least in final focus. It just makes debating- and voting- a lot easier.

-I expect the second speaking team to defend case in their rebuttal (at the very least responding to turns). That should be standard on the NE circuit, though, but if it isn't for you, figure out judge adaptation because if arguments go unresponded in the second rebuttal then I'll flow them as conceded.

-Actually extend your warrants. Don't just extend an impact or a card without the warrant. Same goes both ways- voting for you is hard without anything to vote on, so extend your impacts too. Basically, if you want to extend an argument, extend the whole argument and not just the card name or a blippy tagline.

-That said, extending every argument is a waste of time. Don't be afraid to make strategic decisions- if there's an argument with minimal impact, or if there's an argument your opponent has a lot of defense but no turns on, I'm honestly okay with you dropping it. It clears clutter from the flow, and I appreciate it when debaters can understand which of their arguments is their most important during the round. Know how to collapse.

NLD:

I have very little experience judging in LD, so treat me like a lay judge. To that end, some things to keep in kind:

-Even though I’m functionally a lay judge in LD, I'm not, like, lay-lay in terms of things like speed, nor am I a stranger to debate in general. I can probably handle your speed, but if your varsity/other experienced debaters have told you that you're actually capable of spreading, that's the point at which flowing will be hard for me.

-In terms of values, my background is PF, so unless you warrant your value and why I should evaluate it I'll default to a utilitarian framing of the round. I don't want to do that, though- I'm pretty receptive to anything else that's well-warranted- so if your warranting is good it shouldn't be a problem.

-Similar to that, in PF, there are no counter plans. I’m still open to them, but they just aren’t my strong suit, so make sure you warrant and explain them.

That's all I care to write. Let me know if you have any questions.

Name: Cameron Wilson
School Affiliation: Millard West/Millard North
Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 6
Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 4
Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 0, I’ve judged a few tournaments of LD
Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 0
If you are a coach, what events do you coach?
What is your current occupation? Student

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery
I can only type 75 words per minute, so beyond a certain point I won’t be able to flow your speed, although I can hear it. For example if your case is 4.5 pages(12pt font, double spaced) odds are I’ll miss a flowing a little bit of it.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) Tie up the most important arguments line by line, but other than quickly telling me why unimportant args are unimportant, leave them out.

Role of the Final Focus: Big Picture
Extension of Arguments into later speeches: Definitely don’t bring up an argument in the final focus that you only ever mentioned in your case and say that it should be voted on. Carry them through most of the speeches, and if you had to drop something in summary, tell me why it’s okay (for example, quickly argue that you dropped it because you won it)

Topicality: I’ll treat it on a case by case basis. I like wild arguments that talk about how the resolution’s affirmation/negation has far reaching and unrelated impacts, but tie it back to the resolution. An example of non topicality for me is if the resolution was about gun control and you have a case that is completely about organ harvesting with zero mention of control.

Plans: I have no idea how this would ever come up. If you create a parallel plan to the resolution and say something like “instead of the arguing for the resolution we’re arguing for this plan”, I will allow the other team to just say you are being non-topical.

Kritiks: Not convincing in public forum, not interested in hearing it. Like if your case is a Kritik that says I need to vote for you to send a message to the national speech and debate association to instigate change, I’ll probably just ignore it all.

Flowing/note-taking: I try to flow literally every single point and argument made, but I can only type so fast. Sometimes if I miss something I’ll go up and edit the flow after your speech if I remember what you said. Giving speeches in order that you have flowed is very easy for me to follow and preferred.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?: I didn’t know argument/style were in opposition to each other. I value argument I suppose, but if your style is vicious meanness or extreme mumbling then I’ll give horrible speaker points and maybe stop flowing.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches?: Yes

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech?: No, but in my experience most of the time second speaking team doesn’t cover both it means they’re going to drop a lot of their case and cede many arguments. It is highly highly recommended

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus?: Not unless they’re brought up in a speech. It should be easy to include them in a speech though—just very quickly summarize/remind me of what happened in the crossfire and I’ll put it on my flow.

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here: I will intentionally naively believe a lot of evidence within reasonable grounds, in order to make teams address each others arguments.

What I am looking for when judging

-understand what you are debating

- good delivery

-be polite to opponents and judge

- being persuasive and making good arguments

Don’t do these things while I’m judging

- no racist slurs

- don’t be messing around and laughing

- don’t be rude

-don’t be swaying and moving around excessively while speaking