stop reading this its embarrassing

I'm a high school debater pronouns she/her

I can flow fast speeches, but online debates lend themselves best to slightly slower speakers. If you're speaking too fast for my internet connection, I will ask you to slow down.

I judge based on arguments not style. Speaker points are awarded based on the quality of your argumentation, not the quality of your speaking style. For rebuttal speakers, quality argumentation means effectively collapsing arguments and weighing. If you just repeat your arguments in a rebuttal speech, you're not doing your job.

I like examples. Since it's parli debate, that includes hypothetical examples. Please extend your arguments in constructives by giving new examples, new evidence, or new warranting or impacts. I don't like it when debaters repeat what their partners have already said. It's boring for me and it does nothing for your case.

Theory: I'm not a fan of theory. Unless your opponents have committed a crime against nature, I don't expect to be receptive to it, but I'll try my best to understand where you're coming from. Kritiks must be linked into the topic for me to be receptive to them. I also have veeerrry little experience when judging/understanding kritiks so please go slow and easy with me.

Be respectful! I don't ask for pronouns because no one should be forced to explain their pronouns but don't assume your opponents' pronouns. I'd prefer you say "my opponent" than "he" or "she".

As a high school debater myself and lover of rhetoric as a whole, I judge debates traditionally, but with consideration for a few other factors that I personally admire. Like most judges at both the varsity and novice level, I find the coherence, relevance, and rationality of any argument to be integral to its success. No one argument may stand without a representation, to some degree, of each of these factors.

Where I might diverge at the personal level as a judge is when considering the use of pathos, or emotion, in an argument. Pathetic arguing is something I admire in a debate. It conveys a praiseworthy element of humanity in arguments, and prevents them from becoming apathetic, or passionless speeches. As Plato would say, "A speaker who is attempting to move people to thought or action must concern himself with pathos."

With that being said, I will not deduct points from debaters who do not use emotion in their argument, nor will I discredit extremely logic-based arguments. Along the lines of traditional judging, I still believe that logic is the most important aspect of any debate, and understand that the facts of case outweigh the passions behind it. I simply feel that emotion is an admirable touch to any argument, and is what connects our practice of debating to the art of persuasion reflected in the real world.

Solid weighing, and put the words in my mouth assume I don't know how to think anything that isn't basic linking weight and impacting needs to be done for me to put it on my flow.

Hello Debaters!

Good for you at checking paradigms.... I judge several different types of debate:

As a communicator, you should be able to adapt to your audience...ie Judge.

Have fun! Debate is a wonderful activity where you can be smart, have fun, and learn at the same time.

Some items I think you should be aware of that I think weakens your presentation:

Being rude, forgetting to tag your cards, not having cards formatted correctly, and not making some kind of eye contact with judge during cross.

DO NOT say please vote for Aff/NEG...your argumentation and evidence should demonstrate your side should win.

Things to help your presentation: Smile, being polite, and organizing your arguments with internal signposting...sharing cards and evidence before using them.

Public Forum- DO NOT PROVIDE AN OFF TIME ROADMAP- I do not need it.

Please have started the email chain and flipped as soon as you can.

include me in the email chain macleodm@friscoisd.org

Or use a speech drop

General Ideas

There is not enough time in PF for effective theory/K to run. I will not vote for you if tricks or theory are your only arguments. I expect the resolution to be debated and there needs to be clash.

I think you should be frontlining offense (turns and disads) in rebuttal. Straight up defense does not need to be frontlined, but I do think it's strategic. Summary to final focus extensions should be consistent for the most part. Overall, the rule of thumb is that the earlier you establish an argument and the more you repeat it, the more likely I will be to vote for it, i.e., it's strategic to weigh in rebuttal too, but it's not a dealbreaker for me if you don't.

To me warrants matter more than impacts. You need both, but please please extend and explain warrants in each speech. Even if it's dropped, I'll be pretty hesitant to vote on an argument if it's not explained in the second half of the round. Also, I have a relatively high standard for what a case extension should look like, so err on the side of caution and just hit me with a full re-explanation of the argument or I probably won't want to vote for you.

The most important thing in debate is comparing your arguments to theirs. This doesn't mean say weighing words like magnitude and poverty and then just extending your impacts, make it actually comparative please.

Technical Debate

I can flow most of the speed in PF, but you shouldn't be sacrificing explanation or clarity for speed.

I will try my best to be "tech over truth", but I am a just a mom of two five year olds and I do have my own thoughts in my head. To that end, my threshold for responses goes down the more extravagant an argument is.

If you want me to call for a piece of evidence, tell me to in final focus please.

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

Policy I am a stock issues judge when adjudicating Policy. I am fine with speed/spreading with signposting and roadmaps.

I can't stand the K. Please don't run one. Debate the resolution or run a T argument but very rarely will I vote off case arguments.

Parli/World Schools- Need to see fully developed warrants, impacts and confidence. I love stories and learning new TRUE stuff...

LD- I love debates about Criterion and no neg cases are great if ran with logic, links, and detailed examples. Tell stories. I will buy it if presented professionally and with logic. I need weighing of worlds and chrystalization.

Congress- Please make sure to reference previous representatives speeches and show me you have been flowing and are responding to what has been said in round.

Showing decorum and being polite- like thanking the previous representative always a good thing :)

PLEASE DO NOT ask if I am ready- I am always ready or I will say to please wait.

World Schools- I love the decorum/Parli element and terminology usage. Attacking the premise of arguments, call out logical fallacies, and weigh the worlds please....Make sure to give examples that are not just made up- I know Harvard studies everything, but please refrain from making stuff up.

I do appreciate puns/tasteful humor and use those POI requests and answers strategically.

I am a high school debater who has been debating for the past 6 years. I have much experience with tournaments on the East Coast, along with some international competitions.

Please signpost! It makes things so much easier for me to follow.

Talk at a comfortable pace as long as you are sure that I can understand you.

Remember to be calm and try your best! Have fun with it, and no matter what the result is you can only learn.