Hello. In high school, I did LD debate for two years, and I highly enjoyed it and look forward to judging future rounds. Here are my preferences so you can know going in what kind of judge I am (or if you want to strike/preference me)

1. Please do not spread. I can handle fast talking to make your point across, but I was trained in classic LD, and if you are going so fast as a reasonable person cannot understand you, I will not be able to take notes/judge your point appropriately. I do not give warnings.

2. Please keep your cases somewhat understandable to a lay person. Remember LD debate is all about supporting your value around the topic, and refuting your opponent's arguments. If I can tell you are using highly biased or made up evidence, I will call you out on it when I disclose.

3. If possible, please roadmap your speeches for AF 4 and 2 minute rebuttals and Neg 6 minute rebuttals. By that point, we will have covered much ground and it can get confusing for someone who does not know the debater's case inside and out if they go in without an outline.

4. I appreciate when one actually clashes with their opponent. If you spend all your rebuttals talking about why your value is so great and not why your opponent is in the wrong, you aren't actually debating, you're making a persuasive speech.

5. I allow and encourage debaters to keep their own time. I will also keep time on a stopwatch. I can give warnings at a debater's request, but I will not cut off speakers when their time is up. When your time is up, finish your sentence and stop. If you go over by more than like 10 seconds I do deduct from speak points.

6. Do whatever to keep yourself comfortable during the round (sit or stand, drink, etc) but unless you have a medical condition, please do not eat during a round. It's distracting and no one likes seeing someone talk through a mouth full of food.

TLDR: I am a classical LD judge and my judging style reflects it (aka I will judge on value debate and how well each debater supported their style). If you want a judge who loves moral clash debate, I'm your gal. If you are running a seven off on how robots will take over the world unless we adopt the affirmative, you may want to strike me.

ADDITIONAL NOTES (Especially for TOC): I tend to be stingy with speaker points. I will not go below 25 unless you are abusive in round, but the highest I have gone this year has been 29.9 and that was the best debater I have ever seen. Usually I tend to average around 27 speaker point scores, unless you wow me you are not getting super high speaks. If you are abusive, I will call you out on it in disclosure, I will write it on your ballot, and if it happens in an elim round, I will usually downvote an abusive argument (elimination rounds especially at national tournaments can be won by a single sentence). On the other hand, I give good feedback, even if I do tend to be a little harsher with criticism/speaker points.

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.

Former debater, favor traditional LD.

Don't spread, focus on the argument your opponent has offered and respond.

I don't score CX. Please use it for clarification and to better understand your opponent's position.

Rude or inappropriate behavior will lose you the round. I have 0 tolerance for bullying or belligerence.

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!

I am a debate coach in Georgia. I also competed in LD and Policy out west. Take that for whatever you think it means.

• LD - Value/Value Criterion (Framework, Standard, etc,) - this is what separates us from the animals (or at least the policy debaters). It is the unique feature of LD Debate. Have a good value and criterion and link your arguments back to it. I am open to all arguments but present them well, know them, and, above all, Clash - this is a debate not a tea party.
• PF - I side on the traditional side of PF. Don't throw a lot of jargon at me or simply read cards... this isn't Policy Jr., compete in PF for the debate animal it is. Remember debate, especially PF, is meant to persuade - use all the tools in your rhetorical toolbox: Logos, Ethos, and Pathos.
• Speed - Debate is a SPEAKING event. I like speed but not spreading. Speak as fast as is necessary but keep it intelligible. There aren't a lot of jobs for speed readers after high school (auctioneers and pharmaceutical disclaimer commercials) so make sure you are using speed for a purpose. If you spread - it better be clear, I will not yell clear or slow down or quit mumbling, I will just stop listening. If the only way I can understand your case is to read it, you have already lost. If you are PRESENTING and ARGUING and PERSUADING then I need to understand the words coming out of your mouth! NEW for ONLINE DEBATE - I need you to speak slower and clearer, pay attention to where your mike is. On speed in-person, I am a 7-8. Online, make it a 5-6.
• Email Chains Please include me on email chains if it is used in the round, but don't expect me to sit there reading your case to understand your arguments - pchildress@gocats.org **Do not email me outside of the round unless you include your coach in the email.
• Know your case, like you actually did the research and wrote the case and researched the arguments from the other side. If you present it, I expect you to know it from every angle - I want you to know the research behind the statistic and the whole article, not just the blurb on the card.
• Casing - Love traditional but I am game for kritiks, counterplans, theory - but perform them well, KNOW them, I won't do the links for you. I am a student of Toulmin - claim-evidence-warrant/impacts. I don't make the links and don't just throw evidence cards at me with no analysis. It is really hard for you to win with an AFF K with me - it better be stellar. I am not a big fan of Theory shells that are not actually linked in to the topic - if you are going to run Afro-Pes or Feminism you better have STRONG links to the topic at hand, if the links aren't there... Also don't just throw debate terms out, use them for a purpose and if you don't need them, don't use them.
• I like clash. Argue the cases presented, mix it up, have some fun, but remember that debate is civil discourse - don't take it personal, being the loudest speaker won't win the round, being rude to your opponent won't win you the round.
• Debating is a performance in the art of persuasion and your job is to convince me, your judge (not your opponent!!) - use the art of persuasion to win the round: eye contact, vocal variations, appropriate gestures, and know your case well enough that you don't have to read every single word hunched over a computer screen. Keep your logical fallacies for your next round. Rhetoric is an art.
• Technology Woes - I will not stop the clock because your laptop just died or you can't find your case - not my problem, fix it or don't but we are going to move on.
• Ethics - Debate is a great game when everyone plays by the rules. Play by the rules - don't give me a reason to doubt your veracity.
• Win is decided by the flow (remember if you don't LINK it, I don't either), who made the most successful arguments and used evidence and reasoning to back up those arguments.
• Speaker Points are awarded to the best speaker - I end up with a rare low point win each season. I am fairly generous on speaker points. I disclose winner but not speaker points. Even is you are losing a round or not feeling it during the round, don't quit on yourself or your opponent! You may not like the way your opponent set up their case or you may not like a certain style of debate but don't quit in a round.
• Don't browbeat less experienced debaters; you should aim to win off of argumentation skill against less experienced opponents, not smoke screens or jargon. 7 off against a first-year may get you the win, but it kills the educational and ethical debate space you should strive for. As an experienced debater, you should hope to EDUCATE them not run them out of the event.
• Enjoy yourself. Debate is the best sport in the world - win or lose - learn something from each round, don't gloat, don't disparage other teams, judges, or coaches, and don't try to convince me after the round is over. Leave it in the round and realize you may have just made a friend that you will compete against and talk to for the rest of your life. Don't be so caught up in winning that you forget to have some fun - in the round, between rounds, on the bus, and in practice.
• Rule of Debate Life. Sometimes you will be told you are the winner when you believe you didn't win the round - accept it as a gift from the debate gods and move on. Sometimes you will be told you lost a round that you KNOW you won - accept that this is life and move on. Sometimes judges base a decision on something that you considered insignificant or irrelevant and sometimes judges get it wrong, it sucks but that is life. However, if the judge is inappropriate - get your advocate, your coach, to address the issue. Arguing with the judge in the round or badmouthing them in the hall or cafeteria won't solve the issue.
• Immediate losers for me - be disparaging to the other team or make racist, homophobic, sexist arguments or comments. Essentially, be kind and respectful if you want to win.
• Questions? - if you have a question ask me.

I'm 100% a game judge, the flow is like a chess board and it is your job to navigate it with whatever tools you have at your disposal. You can run anything; Theory, Topicality, Ks, CP, DA/AD/Plans/KPlans but for all of those you need to give a "why" and impact calc for everything, fail to do that and you will lose the round.

That being said stock issues are inherent to an argument, if you don't solve for anything or you can't show significance then you will also lose. Topicality is loose for me but again if you fail to solve for something or show it's significance then you lose.

Spread as fast as you want, I was reading at 340 wpm once upon a memory. If you turn into a mumble rapper like Post Malone then you are not communicating effectively and you'll have stuff drop on the flow. Clear and fast is fine, murmuring quickly is not fine. When in doubt slow is smooth and smooth is fast. Too often debaters are reliant on judges reading their card for them to put them on the flow rather than conveying the information. If there is something in the debate that is the razors edge that will make or break the round then I will evaluate it but that is rarely ever the case (I have only seen it once, same source cut two different ways).

My default settings:

I will hear theory arguments if you are deeply against any of the following but otherwise this is how I vote.

Disclosure has to be consensual prior to the round but when you are giving the constructive what are you really gaining from not exchanging? Plus it is in the NSDA manual you have to produce evidence for your opponent at their request.

Aff gets fiat for world building otherwise the debate can't happen.

Neg gets conditionality to truth test with multiple worlds.

General sportsmanship should be observed. I was a debater, I promise you I know abuse when I see it. If your opponent checks it and you don't have some good reason for trying to push that envelope you'll lose. Be excellent to each other.

I do private coaching but I also care deeply about the debate community so please feel free to reach-out with questions after your rounds. mconvey1@jhu.edu

Private Coaching Link

https://www.citrononline.org/camps-and-coaching/p/private-coaching

B.S. Ecology from Arizona State University

M.L.S. Environmental Law from Sandra Day O'Connor Law College

M.S. Geospatial Intelligence from Johns Hopkins University

Debate Director of the Citron Online Speech and Debate District

updated: 12/04/20

he/him/his

conorgorilla@gmail.com (feel free to ask questions; add me to email chains)

Background

I graduated from Grady High School (Atlanta) in 2016 after competing in LD for four years. As a senior, I won the GA state championship, qualified to the TOC, won several national tournaments, and placed highly at the NSDA national tournament. I'm a current college senior studying philosophy and human cognition. As of 12/03/20, I haven't judged or watched a debate round since 2016.

Quick Paradigm

Develop clear arguments, be explicit about argument function/interaction, weigh, and develop a ballot story. I want to avoid intervention and decide the round on the flow, and if you are clear about how I should vote, that should be possible. Here are some considerations to reduce intervention and elucidate default assumptions:

- I hold positions to a high standard of clarity and explanation. I not only need to understand your position when you first read it, but the explanation has to be good enough that I think it is reasonable for a reasonably well-informed high-school student to understand the argument. Thus, if you say 'Morality’s directives can only be categorically binding if they are constitutive of agency, as otherwise they are escapable' that is not an adequate explanation of the argument. The only reason I know what that means, is because I know the actual argument that it's a placeholder for. Similarly, if you say 'prefer competing interpretations because it prevents a race to the bottom and reasonability is arbitrary' I will not fill in for you the many missing internal links and extrapolation needed for that to mean something. [I'm fine being reactive during the debate. If you are belaboring a point, I may wave at you to move on. If you are uncertain about the quality of your explanation in-round and you ask something like "Does that make sense?", I'll nod/shake my head. If I can't understand you or your argument, I may say "clear".]

- You should win the round because you can beat your opponent's arguments, not because your opponent cannot make arguments. This means if you read super complex Ks or frivolous theory against a novice your speaks will suffer.

- I'm more tech than truth but not all the way—you still have to meet a minimum threshold for coherent argumentation. This means, for example, a link from X to Y needs to be conceivable/possible. In some cases, there may be tension between one argument and another, but absent opponent objection, I can still formulate an intelligible ballot for the contradictory strategy. E.g., a cap K + econ DA or militarism K + heg DA may seem at odds, but a sensible ballot is possible . In other cases, this is impossible. E.g., a winning extension of ‘kritik takes out theory’ + a theory shell makes voting on theory incoherent with the rest of the strategy. I do not view the cross-application of ‘kritik takes out theory’ to your own theory shell as evaluative intervention. The opposite is true: to avoid the cross-application, I would need to ignore a part of your argumentation.

- The meaning of certain terms evolve over time in the debate context (e.g. RVIs). I would like you to be very clear about what your terms mean, especially given my hiatus from the community.

Theory/T Beliefs

A) I default to competing interpretations, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types.

B) Many LD resolutions are generics, and many 'plans' don't prove generics true.

C) Framework arguments can be applied to theory debates—if util is false, than deterrence is probably not a good reason to drop the debater on theory.

FW Debate

A) I default to epistemic/ethical confidence (i.e. even narrowly winning framework A > B excludes offense to framework).

B) Framework debate is comparative (i.e. a simple ‘risk of offense’ argument defeats skepticism excepting better framing by the team forwarding skepticism (that is a big exception!) ; the same applies to ‘a priori’ or ‘pre - standards’ arguments – I am inclined to compare the strength of the warrant for a dropped a priori against conflicting evidence elsewhere)

C) Theoretical justifications are okay, but I would rather listen to substantive ones.

K Beliefs

A) K arguments that talk about what the debater should have done I tend to think about as theory shells. Ks that talk about what the government should have done I tend to think about as a dis ad + a counterplan.

B) Reasons the affirmative ethical theory is bad, are normally not reasons the affirmative loses. Just a reason we should assess the resolution under a different ethical theory. Obviously this is not universal nor incontestable.

C) If you are using dense or esoteric lit, please be very clear in your initial arguments and your extensions.

Contention Debate

A) Risk of offense beats nothing.

B) Weigh both impacts AND evidence quality.

Ethics

A) Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic.

B) Don't manipulate evidence or clip. I'll default to tournament rules here regarding how to handle it.

(parts of this paradigm are copied directly from M Thompson & B Overing)

hey! I'm tech> truth- I prefer to vote on like true arguments (this excludes things like comparative analysis of economics- I'm more talking about things like "police do not have qualified immunity" that I wouldn't like to see in the round), but will vote on almost anything.

A: I will not vote on shitty impact turns like "oppression (of any kind for any reason) good". I will drop you, give you the minimum amount of speaker points available and tune you completely out and talk to your coach. This is shitty.

B: Please read my whole paradigm: I don't want to have to give a whole speech on my preferences before the round; it's a waste of time and I would rather just go ahead with the round.

C: I really don't like miscut cards/ evidence (it's wrong to do) and will lower your speaks because of it if you aren't already losing on it. (I will be checking evidence if it's called out/ if i feel fishy about it)

LAYERS

1. Theory

2. Topicality

3. K

4. Case

5. DA's, CP, etc.

THEORY STUFF

- Not a fan of friv theory, but not all theory is friv theory. if you run that shell, it's a perfcon, but unless your opponent points it out I'll vote on it, but won't really be happy abt it.

- Drop the arg is NOT AN RVI: when you tell me to/ win drop the arg, I'll stop evaluating theory and go to the next layer of the debate. If you say it's an RVI, I will not vote on it as an RVI. I'll just go to the second layer of the debate.

- If you collapse to a different layer in the 2n/ 2a I'll kick theory with you but PLEASE TELL ME TO DO SO (also really strategic move)

- Y’all: no 2nr/ 2ar theory unless you justify it earlier in the round. This is nasty please I am begging you.

- I'll evaluate the round however it goes, but if you're feeling "don't evaluate the round after the 1n/2nr/1ar", it's up to your opponent to say otherwise, not me.

-I HATE TRICKS it's not debate. Please don't run this in front of me.

TOPICALITY

- please god run this if the aff isn't topical*: I DISLIKE AFFS THAT PRETEND TO BE TOPICAL(YES I'M TALKING ABOUT THE SUBS AFF)

- I don't really buy that the neg has to be topical unless it's a cp, but prove me wrong.

- If you are neg and the aff violates t-plural, you can absorb that as part of your advocacy and I'll buy it.

*tell me why non t affs are harmful!! don't just assert that it's non t.

K's

- I really love k debate, feel free to run this in front of me- these are the rounds I like to judge.

- I’m fine with k debate on a lay circuit: I do like to hear good educational k's (setcol, securitization, orientalism, etc) because those truly open up a space for discussion. BUT PLEASE BE CAUTIOUS OF YOUR AUDIENCE. if the person you’re hitting is super new to debate then please don’t run like psyco or baudrillard if you’re just doing it bc they can’t answer it(i mean the justification should already be in the framework but...). THAT IS BAD, and I’ll most likely dock your speaks by .5 every time I feel you’re being a jerk just to win.

- on that note, as long as you can adapt to make the k educational, then huray!

- K affs are good, but I would like for them to be topicialish, but even if they aren't I'm still down.

- Perms are great AFF

CASE

- If you are creative with your case I will increase your speaks.

- Phil is good and I really love this style of debate and will be really happy if you run it but please know I'm decently well versed in philosophy and will be sad if you mess it up.

- Don't have a lot of specifics here.

- plans are cool too.

CPS, DA, ETC

- I don't care what you do here, just make sure you're doing a good job on why the cp is competitive

- Perms are great

-PICS =???????????????? but go wild if you think you can win that on both the theory and actual argument itself.

MISC

- since we are doing debate online for the most part I do want there to be chains.

- no I don't disclose speaks

- I don't flow cx.

-I'm cool with flex prep, just ask.

- TRIGGER WARNINGS ARE NECESSARY if you are running things that could be potentially harmful (narratives mainly, but you know what is considered violent/ needs a tw). Your words have meaning and weight to them, so be cautious of what you say and how it may impact others.

- (this again should be given but) I also will dock your speaks if you are a jerk to your opponent (or me??) during a speech or just say something way out of line.

- negs don't get perms: pointing out they are defending a singular (noun) and absorbing that as part of your advocacy is not a perm.

- Don't clip cards please I will 100% allow your opponent to stake the round on it and rightfully so.

- you are a jerk if you out spread someone who is obviously new/ not as experienced.

FOR PREFS

1: phil/ K debate

2: "LARP"

3: Theory

4- whatever: whatever else there is

strike: tricks and jerks

yeah. please don't bring me food.

emmadebate01@gmail.com

^ questions (put the subject line “debate question”) and chains (the file share thing sucks) (+3 speaker points if you make the subject funny)).

OVW

I'm a freshman at the University of Michigan studying Math, I did LD 17-18 and Policy 18-20 so I'm still new at this, if you think I messed up please tell me why you thought so. I have no topic knowledge.

I use whatever pronouns you want.

put me on the chain: nicolas.kamel.debate@gmail.com

I will auto vote down racism/sexism/homophobia/etc. good args. I will stop the round for racism/sexism/homophobia. You will get zero speaks and I'll talk to your coach.

Tech over truth- ill read ev if you tell me to, but that makes me more willing to be interventionist

I probably default to reasonability more than others, theory is asking me as the judge to intervene, the only non-interventionist way would be to be reasonable. Still tech over truth but keep that in mind.

LD

Any speed is fine

Having done both policy and ld, I realize how bad lds co-option of policy is. Policy is a dying horse for a reason - lets not kill LD too please. Plans are probably not a thing, no way that policy action affirms ought, neg only gets fiat if aff fiats a plan, Ks are fine but I need to know what the alt does, see policy ideas on both. I am more willing to be interventionist about this stuff.

I am familiar with most common LD frameworks, and have read a substantive amount of philosophy so I probably know what you're talking about. This is a double edged sword: if you lie I will know.

Your coaches may not have explained this to you or you may have not heard of this... we are doing email chains, I want to see your evidence during the round... your opponents should be able to see your evidence during the round, you dont have to send analytics, just cards, so have a card doc ready for the round.

Have fws or else I vote neg on presumption.

Please dont read theory unless abuse happens. RVIs are maybe a thing but liek, do you really wanna spend the debate talking about a flimsy theory arg?

See Lucas Baileys paradigm, hes an ld judge I agree with on most stuff. If you dont know, ask me before the round.

Policy

Aff

Its affs burden to prove t, inherency, and solvency, not negs burden to prove otherwise.

Probably go for one advantage, it makes it easier for me to write the ballot for you

Read or don't read a plan i don't care, but like, please talk about the topic (or don't see thoughts on fw).

FW

do or dont read a plan i dont care but know this:

Procedural fairness is prob an impact. I think if we didn't care about the competitive nature of debate parents and teachers would not want anything to do with it. I dont think convincing me that its an internal link to education is the right strat, just tell me why education outweighs, which it definitely can.

small schools da flows neg lol

its a lot easier for me to vote aff on fw if the aff does something/talks about the topic

I need case/neg position lists to vote for either side

tva doesnt have to do the aff/solve it 100%, thats neg ground. tell me why the tva means you can't read whatever philosophy you are reading

DA

U/Q: the date of the cards is important to me, but not as important as to some judges. If you can find a warrant in your card that shows why yours still matters, ill consider it over the date.

link: please explain these well, or else I can't assign high risk

Impact: I love non nuke war impacts; spices things up.

Other:

Thumpers are great, just explain why that instance has something to do with the aff

If you read an obscure DA, make sure I understand it, if your school found a weird cool new politics da, the 2nr needs to be really good about the story.

CP

I am way more receptive to cp theory than most judges. The counterplan is probably cheating lol. If the cp has not historically functioned as the neg has put it or it is actually bad for debate, the aff should call them out. Do not be afraid to go for states bad against states. That being said, the impact is probably reject the arg. Please dont word pic unless the language is legitimately abusive. Analytic cps are something I am weary about, I don't know what that means though.

Ill judge kick unless you tell me not to, judge kick is condo. Condo prob good but dont overdo it

K

!!!I am a believer that you should not read a K you don't understand, I hate when people stick a K in the 1nc and then in cx they can't explain it. Please know your ev and the theory behind it. (Don't read cap without understanding the labor theory of value, don't read security without understanding cosmo, don't read agamben without understanding the state of exception, etc.)!!!

I am getting more and more weary of ks of reps where the alt is reject discourse, etc. on that note, the pik needs to be explained very well for me to vote on it, on a truth level, i dont get how you can k the affs impacts and then do the aff.

I am getting tired of K teams reading essays with little to no clarity and not sending the analytics in the speech doc. I am not one to be like "i think they said that ill grant it to them" when the 2nr is "they dropped link 7 of 12". I will give the other team leeway when answering spread through analytics.

Please dear god dont spread through your prewritten blocks that use words no one knows the meaning of. Using big K words(libidinal economy, ontology, juissance, resentiment, subjectivity, hyperreal, anything deleuze, etc.) will make me angry, especially if you're saying them just to confuse your opponent. Don't be that person. I will know and your speaks will suffer.

Link:

If reading something nebulous, you need to explain the link so that I may understand it. On the other hand, aff should cx the k for understanding before its cxed for argumentation.

Don't spread through 8 links in the rebuttal, it will be hard to flow and i'll understand little, choose good ones and extend well.

Impact: do what you want just be clear and understandable, see thoughts on link, if the k is of reps, i dont get how using those words causes post-fiat violence if fiat is illusory

Alt: Again, I'd like you to be clear, and have material change. I am very receptive to vagueness bad theory.

Framing: I like real world impacts, if aff wants to go for policymaking best for change, that's good, if aff wants to go for weigh the plan for education, that's good to. Vice versa for the neg. BUT, fairness is probably an impact, see above.

T

do what you want, but its a lot easier to vote for an interp with 20 affs than 1.

This is my first time judging a debate tournament. I will take notes and vote for whoever presents the most compelling argument.

First, a little about me...

I debated Public Forum for three years in high school at Piedmont Academy and Policy for four years at the University of Georgia.

Yes, put me on the email chain: morganpac15@gmail.com

I expect respect from everyone involved no matter the climate - race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. IF you have something controversial to say, I expect you to back it up and give it a purpose.

Let's talk PF:

Do you expect everything in the final focus to also be in the summary? Not necessarily - every round is different and comes down to different things, but I think having your main points extended in both is important. By the time of the summary and final focus, your winning points should be obvious (this includes your impact calculus).

Do second speaking teams have to respond to the first rebuttal? Yes, if time permits.

Do first speaking teams have to extend defense in the first summary? Defense, yes. New arguments, no.

Do you flow/judge off crossfire? It depends on how the round is going; crossfire can either make or break you, and if it is a close round, crossfire will play a part in the decision.

Do teams have to have more than one contention? No.

Does framework have to be read in the constructives? This is a loaded question - if you think you will need framework, include it in the constructive. AT THE LEAST, framework MUST be apart of the rebuttals. Summary or final focus is too little too late to bring up or heavily impact the framework debate.

Speed is fine, off-time roadmaps are encouraged, do not dominate or take over your partner's crossfire, but if needed, I will allow *some tag-teaming. I don't want you to be a sitting duck, but crossfire is the time where judges can see just how much you really know about your case, evidence, and arguments.

Let's talk Policy:

At the end of the day, the debate will come down to who had the most convincing points and who extended them the best. Clash is key, impact calc is key.

K Arguments: I am fine with K arguments, but do not assume that what you are advocating for is clear to all those who are listening. I need to see why the K outweighs staying on-case and why it is beneficial to debate.

DAs: I love me a good disad. Economy DA, Politics DA, any DA. If you can prove to me why the DA outweighs what the Aff can do, then I am all in it.

Topicality: I am completely fine with T args; I think in the chaos they keep the debate centered. But be warned, if you go for T, it must be won in the round.

CPs: Counterplans are fine IF they are not messy. I have seen, gone against, and read some really complex CPs that just don't pan out in the time permitted. If the explanation is not there in the planks and you struggle to add all you are trying to say, you probably shouldn't do it.

Don't get lost in the complexity of what Policy debate is; no matter the format, all debates come down to what the arguments are, how the evidence withstands, and how the debaters themselves carry the case through.

If anyone has any questions or if I left anything out, don't hesitate to ask :)

Good luck to all, and God bless!

I competed in LD for 4 years with Grady HS in Atlanta. Currently coach HS parli.

Please use they/them pronouns to refer to me. Feel free to ask me about this if you have questions!

email: alex.opsahl@yale.edu (include me in email chain)

___

Be kind!! Debate should be an enjoyable learning experience. It's not that deep.

Don't be racist/ homophobic/ transphobic/ etc. or I will drop you with 0 speaks and talk to your coach. No "oppression good" impact turns.

Psychological safety is v important- include trigger warnings for sexual assault, suicide, anti-Black violence, etc. If you feel uncomfortable at any point during round, feel free to email me ASAP and I will do my best to address the issue.

____

Pref overview:

fw/ phil/ ks: 1

policy/larp: 2

t/theory: 3

tricks: 4- not a fan

______

tech > truth, unless you say something violent or blatantly false.

T> theory

truth testing > comparative worlds

Feel free to spread. That being said, it's been a minute since I judged/ debated, so I may miss a few things if you do (I only vote on what I can flow). If you do spread, disclose your case.

Theory: Please only read theory if your opponent's argument is genuinely abusive. Might vote on RVIs if well-warranted. Will use reasonability standard unless convincing arg is made against this.

If you run "progressive/circuit" args at a local tournament, ensure everyone can understand your argument regardless of their exposure to progressive debate. I'd prefer if we all try to make debate as accessible as possible!

I am a freshman in college and this is my first time ever judging a debate tournament, so I can best be described as a "lay judge". I will take notes and vote on whoever provides the most compelling argument. Please try not to spread (speak too fast) since I'm still pretty new to this and be respectful to one another :).

I'm Griffin Richie (he/him). I graduated from Grady High School in Atlanta in 2021- I competed in LD on the local Georgia circuit and national circuit for three years, and in PF my senior year. I've broken at several TOC bid tournaments in LD and PF, won the 2020 GFCA Varsity State Championship in LD, and competed in NSDA Nats for 4 years, advancing in World Schools and PF. I'm new to judging.

Please put me on the email chain: griffin.richie@yale.edu. This should be set up before the round if possible. I'll boost speaks if there's an email chain in PF or traditional rounds.

This is my LD paradigm. It generally applies to PF and policy (if I'm judging that for some reason). My PF paradigm is at the bottom, as well as my thoughts on traditional debate.

T/L

I'll evaluate anything, as long as it is not explicitly racist/sexist/homophobic, etc.- I'll be as tabula rasa as possible. I'm tech>truth, but lower-quality arguments have a lower threshold of response.

You must have trigger warnings if you are talking about firsthand accounts of violence. Safety is important.

The affirmative must have a framing mechanism, whether it be in the traditional value-value criterion, standard, or ROB format. Absent an aff framework, I'm very comfortable voting off of any neg framing mechanism.

I'll read evidence if you ask me to, but that invites intervention. I'll really only do this if there are competing claims over warrants in key pieces of evidence.

If you're hitting a lay/traditional debater or novice, don't go lay- I think it's important for those debaters to be exposed to circuit debate, or they will never see the need to learn progressive strategies. However, if you go a little slower than usual, run strategies that are more accessible (basic phil, LARP), and are nice in cross, I will give you very high speaks.

You should disclose at TOC bid tournaments. I'm persuaded by disclosure theory, unless you're hitting a debater who clearly doesn't understand disclosure norms. I'll evaluate frivolous disclosure theory, but I would really rather not judge these rounds.

Cheat Sheet

LARP- 1

Phil- 2

Theory/T/Trix- 3

Ks- 4

Performance/Non T Affs- 5

LARP- I love a pure LARP/ util debate. If you plan on running this strategy, PLEASE weigh evidence quality, links, and impacts so you have a clear ballot story- if not, it will get messy. DA's, CP's, PIC's, Adv's, etc. are totally cool. 1 or 2 condo is fine, anything more is probably pushing it. Plans are fine, but the more specific it is, the more I'm persuaded by T.

Phil- I'm very comfortable with dense philosophical frameworks- I have an in-depth understanding of the common philosophies used (Kant, util, Rawls), and if you read a more nuanced philosophy, I've probably heard of it, but may not have a complete understanding of it- therefore, err on the side of overexplaining the warrants and implications. These debates get very messy when both sides just go for prerequisite or root cause claims, so weigh clearly and extend the syllogism throughout the round.

T/ Theory- Run it, I will vote off of it. I will not gut check theory or T, but the more frivolous it is, the more likely I will be to lower your speaks and have a lower threshold for responses. I'm not the best at evaluating theory, so clearly explain your abuse and ballot story. I'm very convinced by RVI's, especially on the Aff. Defaults- DTD, CI's, RVI's, Norm setting> In round abuse.

Trix- Cool with it. Don't make this debate messy (clearly explain the implications of spikes when you extend them), and don't be shady in CX. If you do either of those things, it'll make it hard for me to vote on trix, and if you're shady in CX, your speaks will suffer. I would prefer if there is clear delineation in the underview. The spikes K is a legitimate response, but I'm unpersuaded by 'spikes on top'.

Ks- Not a huge fan, but I have a basic understanding of many of the common lit bases (cap, afropess, etc.). If you really want to run a K, please do line-by-line and overexplain the warrants and implications, since I probably don't know the lit base that well. More nuanced links than "state bad" are definitely preferable.

Performance/ Non T Aff- You can run this if this is your main aff strat, but I'm not great at evaluating these rounds. I think the aff should be topical, and I'm very persuaded by framework- my main strat against Non T affs was 1 off framework. If you have a performance in the aff you need to explain why that generates offense and have some framework to filter that offense. Performance is probably not the best strategy with me in the back.

Lay/Traditional/Novice

I competed in local and regional lay/traditional tournaments for a large portion of my debate career. Totally cool evaluating this style. Values really aren't necessary. Generally whoever wins the value criterion wins the round, so make sure to do proper framework weighing. I don't really care if you sit/stand, etc., but make eye contact and be clear and passionate when you speak. I'll still vote off of the flow, but those elements are crucial for high speaks.

PF

I did this event for a year. Here are some preferences or must-have's for me:

[1] Anything that's in Final Focus MUST be in Summary. I give a little more leeway for new weighing in the first final focus, but it shouldn't be completely new.

[2] Framework isn't a must, but impact calculus is often necessary in the summary and final focus speeches to deliver a clear ballot story. If not, I may have to intervene.

[3] Extensions of contentions/ subpoints are a must in every speech. If you just do blippy line-by-line, I don't know what arguments you're going for, and it's extremely messy to evaluate.

[4] Please collapse to one or two key arguments in final focus, and preferably summary. It's not only strategically beneficial, but it leads to better clash and articulation of arguments.

[5] Not a fan of paraphrasing evidence at all. If it's particularly egregious, I'll lower speaks. I'm very persuaded by "hey judge, they didn't read actual evidence". Paraphrased evidence is only slightly better than analytics.

[6] I will evaluate 'Progressive PF' or whatever you want to call it, but because PF was designed to be accessible to all and explicitly bans certain arguments, I'd strongly prefer traditional arguments over Ks, Theory, etc. If you want to run these arguments, consider doing LD or policy, and I'll probably tank speaks.

Speaks

Spreading is fine, but send out a doc to both myself and your opponent. If you're not clear when you spread, that will make it very hard to evaluate arguments. Go about 70-80% of your top speed, especially because we are virtual.

I won't evaluate "Give me 30 speaks", because it's a terrible model for debate.

30- Best debater at the tournament

29.5-29.9- Top 5% - really strong performance

29-29.5- Top 10%- very, very good.

28.5-28.9- Top 25% - very solid- you'll probably break

28-28.5- Top 50%- solid- probably won't break

27-27.9- Average- needs improvement

26-26.9- Below average- needs a lot of work

20-25- Racist or offensive. I'm going to talk with your coach.

CX

1. Show your opponent respect- I'm totally cool with an aggressive CX, especially if your opponent is dodging questions, but know the line between aggressive and disrespectful/ demeaning. Your speaks will suffer if you cross the line.

2. CX is binding- if you make a concession in CX, you cannot try and sever out of it. That being said, I will only evaluate what happens in CX if it is brought up in your speech.

Jay Rye - Head Coach - Montgomery Academy

Experience- I have been involved with L/D debate since 1985 as a former L/D debater, judge, and coach. I have been involved with Policy debate since 1998. I have coached Public Forum debate since it began in 2002. While at many tournaments I serve in the role as tournament administrator running tournaments from coast to coast, every year I intentionally put myself into the judge pool to remain up to date on the topics as well as with the direction and evolving styles of debate. I have worked at summer camps since 2003 - I understand debate.

Philosophy

I would identify myself as what is commonly called a traditional L/D judge. Both sides have the burden to present and weigh the values and/or the central arguments as they emerge during the course of the round. I try to never allow my personal views on the topic to enter into my decision, and, because I won't intervene, the arguments that I evaluate are the ones brought into the round - I won't make assumptions as to what I "think" you mean. I am actually open to a lot of arguments - traditional and progressive - a good debater is a good debater and an average debater is just that - average.

While for the most part I am a "tabula rasa" judge, I do have a few things that I dislike and will bias me against you during the course of the round either as it relates to speaker points or an actual decision. Here they are:

1) I believe that proper decorum during the round is a must. Do not be rude or insulting to your opponent or to me and the other judges in the room. Not sure what you are trying to accomplish with that approach to debate.

2) Both sides must tell me why to vote "for" them as opposed to simply why I should vote "against" their opponent. In your final speech, tell me why I should vote for you - some call this "crystallization" while others call it "voting issues" and still others just say, "here is why I win" - whatever you call it, I call it letting your judge know why you did the better job in the round.

3) I am not a big fan of speed. You are more than welcome to go as fast as you want, but if it is not on my flow, then it was not stated, so speed at your own risk. Let me say that to the back of the room - SPEED AT YOUR OWN RISK! If you have a need for speed, at the very least slow down on the tag lines as well as when you first begin your speech so that my ears can adjust to your vocal quality and tone.

4) I am not a big fan of "debate speak: Don't just say, cross-apply, drop, non-unique, or other phrases without telling me why it is important. This activity is supposed to teach you how to make convincing arguments in the real world and the phrase "cross-apply my card to my opponents dropped argument which is non-unique" - this means nothing. In other words, avoid being busy saying nothing.

5) Realizing that many debaters have decided to rely on the Wiki, an email chain, and other platforms to exchange the written word, in a debate round you use your verbal and non-verbal skills to convince me as your judge why you win the round. I rarely call for evidence and I do not ask to be on any email chain.

Jude Sims-Barber, as featured on https://www.change.org/p/keep-the-public-in-public-forum?source_location=search

Hello debaters! I’m a university student studying philosophy and sociology, and was a debater throughout high school for three years. My main proficiency was with Lincoln-Douglas debate and Congressional debate but I am very familiar with Public Forum, Policy, and IDPA debate (and, to a lesser extent, British Parliament and World Schools Debate).

I use any and all pronouns and my email is njudesims@gmail.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: I have minor hearing loss. My inner ear tissue is scarred and my speech perception is affected as a result. This is not an issue of volume, it is an issue of clarity and enunciation. As a result, I cannot understand spreading. It is simply out of my ear's reach. And before you ask, no, you don't magically have the perfectly understandable spreading cadence.

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

General Notes (please read):

Debate is educational first and foremost. Yes, it is competitive (a "game"), but you should always debate in good faith and not use cheap arguments or tricks just to win. Try to understand your opponent and their arguments, and try to make the debate reach a point of conclusion rather than simply making cheap dunks or disingenuous attacks. Communication relies on mutual trust and a desire to learn, not a desire to dominate or win.

Truth over tech. Techy truth is generally fine. I will not disclose. I don't have time to argue with high schoolers about why they lost.

While I understand the desire to make as many arguments as possible, the default should be using an ordinary, pedestrian speed to communicate well-researched ideas. Do not be disingenuous, either in the arguments you choose to run (knowing that they're designed or cut in a manner to disorient your opponent) or the way you explain/extend them.

-Stay topical. You chose to come to this tournament, you paid the entry fee, you know the topic. It's different when academics decide to discuss the weaknesses of our discourse models or the symbolic violence inherent in... English syntax. You aren't an academic, you're a high schooler competing in a competitive tournament you voluntarily signed up for--debate what the resolution says.

Time limits exist as a statement of how long the statements you need to make should take. They are not an excuse to cram as much stuff into that time by spreading.

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

For Lincoln-Douglas:

-Keep it traditional. The most engaging LD debates are those that speak in concrete terms about abstract ideas, using what we examine on a surface level (mere political issues) and revealing hidden moral assumptions or frameworks (theory).

-Is is not ought. Merely because something is the case in the real world says nothing about whether such a thing is morally justified. No, you don't have the solution to the is-ought gap.

-You must have a Value and Criterion. Lincoln Douglas is all about framing topics with an ethical framework. When we say that something is moral or immoral, we must do so with an ethical framework (i.e., consequentialism, deontology, etc.). A value of Morality is meaningless, as the purpose of LD is to normatively prescribe a special importance to a particular value or good (it tells me nothing as a judge if you value morality. You might as well say "it is good to do good things and bad to do bad things").

-Ethical theories are not values. You cannot 'value' utilitarianism--it is an ethical framework through which we quantify or evaluate that which we hold important. We can examine the utility of 'positive freedom' as a value, but we cannot simply value utilitarianism.

-Avoid criteria that are bulkily worded ("ensuring healthcare access" or something similar). Try to limit criteria to established philosophies, ideas, methods, or theories.

-I highly value philosophical consistency and a solid understanding of the philosophical ideas and ethical theories argued for. I know judge intervention is frowned upon, but if you misrepresent a philosophical position or idea, it will be hard for me to trust your proclaimed level of expertise on the topic. Simple mistakes are perfectly okay, as a lot of philosophy is rather impenetrable.

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

For Public Forum:

-PF is not policy. You used to be prohibited from citing evidence in PF until after Ted Turner sponsored it. PF is the lay debate in high school circuits. Keep it simple. To clarify, I do expect you to use evidence, but also your own proficiency for debate.

-If you know a piece of evidence is deeply flawed or even wrong, why run it on the chance that your opponent won't know how to respond? Does that not seem disingenuous to you?

-I'm primarily a flow judge, and I care deeply about clear statements of arguments and rebuttals. If you don't signpost, I'll likely miss it. Tech mainly bores me, so do try to make quality arguments--if you make bad arguments, then I won't prefer them solely because the opposing team couldn't mention the sixth drop of the fourth subpoint in a three minute speech. If the argument is bad, then it's bad--simple as. (By bad, I mean poorly explained, incoherent, frivolous, or cheap.) Drops are only a point in your favor insofar as the dropped argument is actually substantial to the overall debate.

-Focus on broader impacts. Remember that the burden of the CON is not to propose any comprehensive plan of action, merely demonstrate why the PRO is ineffective or harmful.

-Do not spend too much time on one specific point with one specific point of evidence. Give weight to what's important. Collapse by the end. The earlier, the better.

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

For Big Questions:

-Big questions is a descriptive debate, which means that you are debating on what is (descriptive) rather than what ought be the case (normative). What this means is that you are, on aff or neg, answering the big question at hand. What's more, big questions require big answers, and any reasonably big answer contains quite a lot of philosophy. Your case should include some measure of balance between raw theoretical material (philosophy, broadly) and hard science. Depending on the topic, you might lean more to one side (e.g., objective morality exists vs. humans are naturally self-interested).

-In my experience (for the few years BQ has been around), disputes over evidence in BQ shouldn't be boiled down to "well our sources disagree." Generally, a dispute around a big question is epistemological, about how we come to know things and how certain that knowledge really is. For example, saying that "humans are naturally protective of their young" is not really disagreeable on a factual basis, but whether that information is significant as to whether humans are self-interested is a matter of specific theoretical framing and definition.

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

For Policy:

-Don't spread. If you go too fast, I'll say 'clear' until you slow down. This has resulted in me saying clear within the entire 8 minutes of a speech, so please do slow down.

-Please do not force me to rely on an email chain to decide the round.

-On T: I am pretty lenient when it comes to whether a plan/counterplan is topical or not. My standard for determining this is whether or not the plan fits in what I conceive as the "spirit of the resolution." Something may not be strictly topical as per the verbiage of the resolution, but is still topical as it fits the resolution's intended spirit as written. The only times I will flatly reject a plan on topicality is (1) if it is too large in scope, as to encompass the resolution rather than the other way around, or (2) it is so disconnected from the topic that it may as well be a non-sequitur. As an additional note, please don't waste time making a bunch of topicality arguments. It is often time-consuming.

-K's are most commonly a cheap trick, in my view--I know that they're used topic to topic and round to round with little change, as a means to minimize exhaustive prep and real engagement with the topic. The only exception I'll give is to specific instances of abolition/discourse K's, in which you argue (in good faith, I'll be able to tell) that the verbiage or framing of the resolution overly limits available/acceptable discourse. Regardless, don't anticipate a vote in a K's favor. You signed up for this tournament, after all, and your decision to sidestep the topic reflects at least partially on your intellectual honesty.

Please be on time for check-in. Also if you're interested in college debate, I'd love to talk to you about Samford debate!!

If you have any questions about things not on my paradigm, feel free to ask before the round or email me.

Email: joeytarnowski@gmail.com

he/him

Background

Policy debate at Samford (class of 24), qualified to NDT 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024

4 years of LD in high school

Judging

Don't say/run things that are egregiously offensive, i.e. racism/sexism/etc. good, death good, etc.

I would recommend starting off your speech at like 75-80% speed to give me a second to adjust before you build up to full speed. Clear differentiation between tags and the card body is also appreciated.

I do a lot of work on both the policy and critical side of debate in college. I generally am of the predisposition that the aff should defend some implementation of the resolution, the specifics of what that may mean is flexible, but choosing to mostly or entirely jettison the resolution is not the best strategy in front of me. I think Ks on the neg are most successful when forwarding a nuanced indict of some underlying assumptions/mechanisms of the aff, and that affs are typically most successful in reasons why the neg is not able to explain key portions of the aff and leveraging that against the K's explanation of the world.

I'm generally more neg leaning on CP theory debates and typically default heavily to reasonability and rejecting the argument, but I think especially egregious practices can make me swing more toward the middle on issues like condo (i.e. 2NC CPs out of straight turns or kicking planks on CPs with a ton of planks that do a ton of different things). Love a good impact turn debate, hate a stale impact turn debate. Otherwise I don't have any especially notable preferences when it comes to policy arguments, impact calc at the top is always good, evidence comparison is great, etc.

I'm an ok judge for T but am not the biggest fan of it as a throwaway strategy that only occupies a small portion of the neg block. Significant time investment in evidence comparison is much more important to me here and often is a make-or-break.

Note for LD: I would not consider myself a good judge for "tricks". If you regularly do things like hide blippy theory arguments or rely on obfuscating tactics to win debates, I am probably not the best judge for you.

Local/Lay Debate

First and most importantly, I am excited to be judging you and glad you are a part of this activity!

I will disclose my decision and give any feedback I can as long as it is not explicitly prohibited by the tournament, and strongly believe the process of disclosure/feedback/asking questions is one of the most important parts of debate. You are always welcome to ask questions about my decision, ask for advice, clarification, etc. or email me and I will always be happy to help in whatever ways I can (assuming you aren't blatantly rude).

I did a lot of lay debate in high school, it was probably 80% or more of what I did, so I can really appreciate a slower debate. My advice for you is to do what you do best and are most comfortable with, don't feel like you have to spread or read positions you are unfamiliar with because of my policy background, as I started out and have spent almost half of my debate career doing slow, traditional debate. Some other things you should know:

1] One of the most important aspects of my judging is that I think the bar for explanation is generally too low for most debates. If you want to win an argument, you shouldn't just explain what your argument is, but the reasoning behind WHY it's true, as well as what the implication is for that argument being true.

2] Please make sure you have and can show me the full text of any evidence you read. I may not need to reference any evidence after the round, but if I do I would prefer you have it readily available. I would heavily prefer this is made easier by setting up an email chain with me and your opponent where all evidence read in-round is exchanged, both for the purposes of transparency and quality of things like evidence comparison.

3] I often find framework debates in lay LD have little direction or warrants. This is especially true when both sides have a similar or identical framework, and I think those debates would often be drastically improved by the neg just conceding framework and the rest of the debate focusing just on substance.

I also really appreciate folks who have a clear understanding of things like evidence comparison and strategy, I feel most people overlook the ability to make smart strategic decisions and leverage evidence comparison in lay debate. Knowing your evidence and author qualifications and effectively utilizing them are powerful strategic tools, as well as making smart strategic concessions in other parts of the debate to get things like a strong time tradeoff on other important parts of the debate.

I am best described as a parent judge. I listen to your arguments and take notes. I will vote on the team that makes the most convincing arguments in the rounds.

Be nice to each other and be respectful.

For Debate:

- I focus on the flow of the argument

- I look for clashing - I want to see competitors breakdown the opponent's argument

For Speech Events

I look at the creativity in the speech, but also listen for tone and inflection and to present a speech or performance to convince me in what you are saying.