Jordan Berry - Loveless Academic Magnet Program High School

Hello!

I have been a coach and judge since 2015. Most debaters over the years categorize me as a traditional L/D judge. My chief weighing mechanism is usually framework (my undergraduate degree is in philosophy), but I can be persuaded to the contrary. I have no value hierarchy. I strive to keep personal views and ballot intervention away from my RFD. I will evaluate only those arguments brought up by the debaters.

Speed is an issue for me. This is primarily an education and communication activity. I highly doubt either Lincoln or Douglas themselves were spreading, and I've never seen spreading in any real-life situation aside from episodes of "Storage Wars." I do flow the round (though not cross), but "winning the flow" isn't the same as winning the round in some cases; this event is supposed to be persuasive and accessible, not a checklist of responses and replies. Thus, I always roll my eyes when one of my debaters complains about "lay" judges: in crafting a case/round, they should receive as much consideration as that ex-policy debater.

Other issues for me: do be respectful. Do engage meaningfully with the resolution. Do be honest. Do have fun.

Break a leg!

jordan.berry@mps.k12.al.us

P.S. All this extinction stuff is just debaters trolling, right?

Email: caitlynajones1@gmail.com

Pronouns: (she/her)

I have done no topic research. Assume I know nothing

I debated PF for 4 years

• If you want me to vote on it, it needs to be in the summary and the final focus

• Please don’t just yell cards at me. Some analysis please

• If there’s an evidence misconduct problem, I’d rather you point out the issues with your opponent’s interpretation of evidence during your speeches, but I’ll call for a card if you tell me to.

• Any concessions in cross need to be in a speech for me to flow it

• Don't Spread at me. If I need a case doc to follow you, it's too fast.

• I'm not flowing anything after the 10-second grace period

Hi! I did LD for four years when I was in high school, which was not too~ long ago (currently a college sophomore). I mostly competed locally (Alabama), but I've been to circuit tournaments and should know my progressive stuff.

Email: eileen6a@gmail.com

Please include me in the email chain. Also, feel free to email me if you have questions before/after the round.

General

- Clash is very good. Please, please engage with your opponent's arguments

- Tell me why I should vote for you

Framework

- Be sure to explain what your framework is and how I should evaluate it

- Framework comes before contentions, so if you have different frameworks, please debate about it. Be sure to tell me why your opponent's framework is bad

Disads

- I find a lot of disads really improbable. If you want to convince me that something leads to extinction, you’d better have a solid link chain.

Ks

- I’m not familiar with a lot of K lit, but I think they're cool. If you run one, just explain it

Theory

- I really like Theory, and I will totally vote on it

- I also think Theory comes before Ks unless convinced otherwise. (It's not too hard to convince me)

Other

- I will pay attention during cross-ex, but if something important is said, make sure to say it in one of your speeches too.

- Please be nice to everyone

Hello everyone,

I'm Ravi Nataraj, a current junior in chemical engineering at Auburn University. In a past lifetime (high school), I've led the Hoover High LD Debate Team and have judged many tournaments over the past 3 years.

To win the round and ultimately appeal to me, you don't need to do much. Speak slow and loud so I may write legibly. If you spread (sometimes acceptable) or yell gibberish at me, I will not be able to interpret the chicken scratch I've written. Spread if needed for your case ONLY, but try not to for other sections.

LD is the pinnacle of philosophical debate, so value and criterion are EXTREMELY important. Link all cards back to framework heavily. If the opponent proves a card doesn't connect back to framework, you will likely lose that card. I still value card to card debate as it factors into the final "scale" I use.

Because its LD, analytical is preferred over empirical evidence, but understand they go hand in hand. Here, it's worth noting the key difference between LD and PF is the use of philosophy.

Lastly, please don't run anything weird like disadvantages or kritiques (with a k or c?). Actually, kritiques are fine (state the premise) but I'd prefer you don't run it.

That's all and good luck!

Shades Valley '20

SpeakFirst '20

University of Alabama debate '24

Email----fcoden02@gmail.com

I finaled a few locals and had even records at the majority of circuit tourneys

I will probably ask for a piece of paper.

I ran Afropess/Antiblackness the large majority of my senior year so you can be as trad or progressive as you want.

With that being said nonblack people shouldn't run afropess or antiblackness.

Please make the activity accessible, if you know your opponent isn't as progressive as you and I can tell, I'm docking you by at least one point.

no tricks

Feel free to ask any questions.

My name is Isaac Sherman (he/him) and I formerly competed for the Prattville High School Speech and Debate team. I am now a member of the Alabama Forensics Council at the University of Alabama. I have won multiple state championships in Alabama (PF and Congressional). In college, I am a NNFA National champion in IPDA debate.

Concerning the round, I focus primarily on analysis and clash. I prefer clear line-by-line breakdowns of cases, but other methods, with good execution, can win my ballot. I do not have a value hierarchy, as it is the debaters obligation to convince me why I should buy their proposition.

While I expect, and encourage, clash, the easiest way to lose my ballot is by being disrespectful when it is unwarranted. It goes without saying that I should not witness attacks on character, religion, class, speaking style (as in accents), etc. etc. Likewise, do not make an accusation that the opponent has done such things without reasonable grounds. I want a healthy debate designed to cultivate a greater sense of understanding beyond typical secondary curriculum, and the only way to accomplish that is through mutual respect.

I have done debate, and read and think at a speed much like yours most likely. You can spread, but if I don't understand you, or if your opponent is clearly disadvantaged by a lack of understanding of your case specifically because of what appears to be speaking speed, that will impact my decision.

I do not flow cross, so be sure to extend those arguments in your speeches.

Other than that, the debate is fair game. I don't care what you run as long as you prove to me why I should prefer you on a ballot!

On a side note, thank you all for competing. The amount of time and effort that goes into producing the levels of research that you do goes far beyond the expectations place on high schoolers. It is also increasingly complex because of the covid-induced style we have to compete within.

Good luck, and happy debating!