I am open to any argument, as long as it makes sense and is backed up with evidence. The tagline must be what the card actually says.

In rounds, my main pet peeve is unclear tag lines. Be sure that you clearly enunciate the tagline if you want me to take it into account.

For critiques and theoretical arguments, make sure you clearly explain both the argument and its implications.

I try to be open-minded and fair about any arguments presented.

Congressional Debate Paradigm:

I'm looking for the best legislator overall which means I am considering your holistic participation in the round including the types of speeches you have given and the questions you've asked. I love that Congress is a unique blend with an emphasis on delivery and debate/analysis in the round.

Additionally, I value evidence based debate with credible sources. Cite a source so I can look at it if I'm interested.

Please don't re-hash arguments--Know when it's time to move on. I flow the round and will know when you re-hash arguments and evidence. It's also important to know where/when you are speaking in the round in terms of what type of speech you are giving.

Be prepared to speak on either side of a bill.

You are also role playing as a legislator--remember this as well.

Spread only if the speed you use also allows for enough enunciation that I can understand. I can keep up, but only if I can comprehend.

I believe in traditional debate. In LD, everything is about the V/VC construct and should apply to it. I don't really care about definition debate unless it is absolutely vital. Observations don't really matter to me unless both sides agree to them.

In, PF I try to take the position of a typical citizen judge and base "my knowledge" only on what you tell me in the round and not what I already know. Civility is still important in cross-examination so it is important to remember that with me.

In Policy, I am least familiar, so I base everything on my flow and which side has the most arguments standing by the end of the debate. Also, and I know it may be unusual, but I do care if the plan actually makes sense because I can't vote for it if it doesn't.

I don't listen to parenthetical documentation as a source. What does that mean anyway???

Lincoln Douglas Debaters: I love to see a strong and continuous link to your Value and Value Criterion throughout your case. I judge by the flow, and do not mind spreading, but will not be able to fairly judge the round if I cannot understand you while spreading. Please be aware of your time, and be respectful during cross. This is not a Presidential Debate. Best of luck, Natalie

Hi! I'm Karnessia (pronounced car-nee-see-uh). If you're reading this, you're most likely frantically prepping before a debate round, trying to figure out if you can run that K or if I'm ok with spreading. The answer to both questions is likely yes, but my favorite phrase is "make it make sense."

My background: I was a circuit CX debater and later transitioned to LD. I have a bit of experience with PF as well. I later coached parliamentary debate in college.

411:

"How I pull the trigger" --> I likely won't pull the trigger (so to speak) on technicalities unless it's an egregious violation. I'm also not a one drop and you're out type judge. For me, the big picture and the implications of actions in the "real world" are of paramount importance. Again, make it make sense. Paint the world for me that you're asking me to vote for. Show me a world that's genuinely less oppressive, more efficient, than this current one and you're doing well.

If you're going to read a card, be ready to engage it. It's a red flag for me when a debater is asked about a claim made in their card and they stumble through it. As a debater, I was never with the jargon and the posturing that so often comes with debate. Communication is a two-way street. It involves a nuanced understanding of the needs of the speaker and listener. So, break it down for me. Weigh things! Impact it out. And if you're doing LD, please do some value/value criterion weighing/analysis. You don't have to spend a bunch of time with it, but LD is about the values so I want you to engage that too.

I try to be as open-minded as possible, meaning I will most certainly vote for an argument, even if I don't personally agree with the said argument. HOWEVER, I just can't behind arguments that are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, and xenophobic. Hateful ideas like that don't deserve your breath.

Re: speaker points: Again, clarity is everything! Please be clear on your taglines. And please don't cut your opponent off during cross-examination. I mean, sometimes the ends really don't justify the means. It makes me extremely uncomfortable when people get rude to their opponents out of the blue. To clarify, it's definitely ok to press your opponent to wrap up if they're being long-winded.

Extra: Much of my debate philosophy is informed by my former coaches, Darin Maier and Jharick Shields. I studied under Maier and Shields for 6 years. As a result, I realize my paradigms will sound eerily similar to theirs. They go into many specifics re specific arguments and I generally agree with most of their assessments. I endorse almost 100% of each of their paradigms. I hope I've been clear here, but if you'd like a bit more perspective, viewing theirs may also shed a bit more light on mine.

Let's have a great round!

I am a college student that competed in debate for six years from 7th - 12th grade. For debate I have no problem with speed, but please make sure I can understand points that are very important to your case. If is a key point, emphasize it and enunciate. I will only judge based off of what is said in the round. If you want me to know or do something you must tell me and make it painfully obvious to me what you want me to do. Please use supporting evidence in your arguments. If your argument doesn't have any supporting evidence or data, I will not take it as seriously as an argument with supporting evidence.

Make sure I can understand you; don't speak too fast!
Above all, be respectful to each other!

Hello, I’m Khalil Jackson! In high school, I mainly competed in Congressional Debate but have some experience in all debate events. This paradigm applies to all debates.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Keep me in the loop on file sharing (kjspeechanddebate@gmail.com), and make your subject lines specific. I will only flow what I comprehend in round, but I will go through the files if I was thrown off track or need to double-check something.

I am not not too good with speed, especially being so far removed from debate. So, try to maintain a relatively normal speaking pace, if possible. If you want to speed up, we can try it out. I will be forgiving when it comes to clarity and will notify you of it as often as it takes. When signposting, let me know which arguments are especially important and weigh it when you get there. Fewer, more-developed arguments are preferred.

I am more than willing to listen to any arguments or approaches to your side of the resolution. However, assume that I am not familiar with the literature or your arguments. You need to be intentional about what you say and how you tie it together. So, I will not piece together what went unsaid, and I will not vote for you if your arguments are unclear.

I am generally substance over procedure, truth over tech, but that is not a hard and fast rule. I am willing to vote for anything that is well-explained.

I have a habit of giving non-verbal cues, but do not mistake them as an indication that I agree with you. They only indicate that I understand the point you are trying to make, not necessarily that I buy what you are saying.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Here are some of the ways you can lose the round immediately:

- Being deceitful by clipping cards, falsifying evidence or any number of shady things

- Being rude or disrespectful to me or anyone else

- Being racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. in any way shape or form

I try not to intervene but will do so if I am invited to, like being asked to read evidence or if I feel that bad behavior is taking place.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Feel free to let me know if you have any questions or concerns before round!

Think of me as your everyday person judging your debate. That's what PF is for, right?

I have not been involved in competitive debate for long, but I do have a great deal of experience with argumentation and logic. So, I will be evaluating your arguments for their logical conclusions and based on the evidence you provide and whether or not you are able to attack your opponents arguments with the same quality of argumentation as you present your own.

I don't particularly like spreading. If I cannot understand what you are saying, then I cannot evaluate the points you are making, or hold your opponent responsible for responding to them.

I very much appreciate sign posting, as I also think it helps you stay organized in your thinking. I want to hear specific, direct contentions and clashes. If you start to ramble, adding extraneous information, you will lose me.

email - vl15 at rice dot edu (please add to the email chain)

Have any questions? Ask me.

I did policy debate at St. Andrew's Episcopal School in Mississippi from 2016 to 2020. I also did a semester of NPDA at Rice University.

Here are some of my general thoughts about debate:

- I believe that debate is primarily an educational activity. I have no problem intervening when argumentation or discourse is harmful to the debate space.

- Outside of the above, though, I feel my role as an adjudicator is to allow debaters to debate how they're comfortable debating - my role is not to impose my predispositions about debate upon others. I will attempt to intervene as little as possible to make a decision.

- That being said, I am predisposed to grant greater credence to clearly articulated and warranted arguments that advance a coherent theory/understanding of how the world functions. I am indifferent as to what mechanism/framework you utilize to advance these arguments.

- To me, the most persuasive speeches have been the ones where people take the time to dwell on important framing issues in the round and provide compelling analysis as to why they're winning there in a straightforward manner.

Policy Affs

- I feel that there is stronger value to "defensive" arguments than most. It should be possible to win that an affirmative doesn't solve or that there is zero risk of a link to the disadvantage.

- I think that solvency deficits and internal-link takeouts are underutilized and help minimize policy affs well.

- Many policy affirmatives contain, at best, tenuously constructed internal links; teams ought to be unafraid to exploit these weaknesses.

Critical Affs/Framework

- You should be prepared to explain your methodology clearly. I am fine with non-policy affirmatives being read, but I am less experienced in evaluating these (that doesn't mean you shouldn't read them if that's what you do!).

- Even if the affirmative doesn't affirm the resolution, it is better if it relates to the topic in some manner.

- I'm not all that convinced that procedural fairness is intrinsically valuable, but it is probably an internal link to several important impacts (clash education, the collapse of debate, etc.).

Disadvantages

- Specific analysis is important in selling your scenario. Be detailed in your explanation of the link level and the rest will hopefully follow.

- I prefer that you contextualize the disadvantage to the affirmative; even if you have generic links, explain how they implicate the affirmative ("turns case" arguments help mitigate external offense from the affirmative!).

Counterplans

- Most counterplans are alright, although I think that process CPs and international fiat are questionable. Delay counterplans are likely abusive.

- Clever counterplans are fun but are probably not very theoretically legitimate. That being said, there's nothing wrong with a good theory debate.

- Conditionality is probably good (to an extent).

Theory/Topicality

- I default to competing interpretations.

- Good procedural debates are well-organized, well-warranted, and contain good impact weighing. I like these debates.

Critiques

- Teams that read Ks well are able to (1) explain their theory clearly, (2) explain how their theory directly problematizes the affirmative/the affirmative's theory of the world, and (3) explain how their alternative praxis directly resolves these problematizations.

- I may not have more than a surface-level understanding of your theory.

- Framework is probably important for both the aff and the neg in these rounds.

Rachel Mauchline

Durham Academy, Assistant Director of Speech and Debate

Previously the Director of Forensics and Debate for Cabot

she/her pronouns

TL;DR

Put me on the email chain @ rachelmauchline@gmail.com

speed is fine (but online lag is a thing)

tech over truth

Policy

I typically get preferred for more policy-oriented debate. I gravitated to more plan focused affirmatives and t/cp/da debate. I would consider myself overall to be a more technically driven and line by line organized debater. My ideal round would be a policy affirmative with a plan text and three-seven off. Take that as you wish though.

Lincoln Douglas

I've judged a variety of traditional and progressive debates. I prefer more progressive debate. But you do you... I am happy to judge anything as long as you defend the position well. Refer to my specific preferences below about progressive arguments. In regards to traditional debates, it's important to clearly articulate framework.

Public Forum

weighing.... weighing.... weighing.

I like rebuttals to have clear line by line with numbered responses. 2nd rebuttal should frontline responses in rebuttal. Summary should extend terminal defense and offense OR really anything that you want in final focus. Final focus should have substantial weighing and a clear way for me to write my ballot. It's important to have legitimate evidence... don't completely skew the evidence.

Here are my specific preferences on specific arguments if you have more than 5 mins to read this paradigm...

Topicality

I enjoy a well-articulated t debate. In fact, a good t debate is my favorite type of debate to judge. Both sides need to have a clear interpretation. Make sure it’s clearly impacted out. Be clear to how you want me to evaluate and consider arguments like the tva, switch side debate, procedural fairness, limits, etc.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

This was my fav strat in high school. I’m a big fan of case-specific disadvantages but also absolutely love judging politics debates- be sure to have up to date uniqueness evidence in these debates though. It’s critical that the disad have some form of weighing by either the affirmative or negative in the context of the affirmative. Counterplans need to be functionally or textually competitive and also should have a net benefit. Slow down for CP texts and permutations- y’all be racing thru six technical perms in 10 seconds. Affirmative teams need to utilize the permutation more in order to test the competition of the counterplan. I don’t have any bias against any specific type of counterplans like consult or delay, but also I’m just waiting for that theory debate to happen.

Case

I believe that case debate is under-covered in many debates by both teams. I love watching a case debate with turns and defense instead of the aff being untouched for the entire debate until last ditch move by the 2AR. The affirmative needs to continue to weigh the aff against the negative strat. Don't assume the 1AC will be carried across for you throughout the round. You need to be doing that work on the o/v and the line by line. It confuses me when the negative strat is a CP and then there are no arguments on the case; that guarantees aff 100% chance of solvency which makes the negative take the path of most resistance to prove the CP solves best.

Kritiks

I’ll vote for the k. From my observations, I think teams end up just reading their prewritten blocks instead of directly engaging with the k specific to the affirmative. Be sure you understand what you are reading and not just read a backfile or an argument that you don’t understand. The negative needs to be sure to explain what the alt actually is and more importantly how the alt engages with the affirmative. I judge more K rounds than I expect to, but if you are reading a specific author that isn’t super well known in the community, but sure to do a little more work on the analysis

Theory

I’ll vote for whatever theory; I don’t usually intervene much in theory debates but I do think it’s important to flesh out clear impacts instead of reading short blips in order to get a ballot. Saying “pics bad” and then moving on without any articulation of in round/post fiat impacts isn’t going to give you much leverage on the impact level. You can c/a a lot of the analysis above on T to this section. It’s important that you have a clear interp/counter interp- that you meet- on a theory debate.

-Lay Flow Judge

-Prefer Traditional Cases

-Will flow through the round, but please keep in mind that if you choose to spread, I should be able to understand the speaker and if it become too unbearable I will put my pen down.

-If you use any debate jurgen, please explain it before continuing on with your case.

-Provide definitions when necessary.

-Will not disclose.

-When it come to break rounds and you have other judges to consider, don't stress the not spreading detail and having to run a traditional case for the sake of me. I can put up with it, if the majority of judges prefer it.

Background: I am a senior at U.C. Berkeley majoring in political science. I graduated from St. Andrew's in 2017 and I did two years of PF and two years of local and "circuit" LD.

If you only have two minutes before round: Proceed with caution spreading. I normally find a slower and well explained card is better than an extra card or excessive highlighting. I don't really like theory and I haven't voted on it yet. I do appreciate a couple voters in your last speech. Assume I am not familiar with your critical lit or philosophy and explain it well. I will not vote on something I don't understand. Do what you are best at, following these adaptations. I am just looking for the best arguments. Excessive rudeness could result in a loss. And if you have questions please ask when all debaters are present in a round.

DO: Be clear. Be kind. Be patient. Read what you are best at and what you believe in. Have a content warning when appropriate. Cite properly and clarify what you read. Make good and complete arguments. Time yourself and your opponent. Give voters.

DON'T: Be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Use excessive profanity. Yell at your opponent. Assume I will read your cards for you. Ask me to vote on something that didn't happen in round. Ask me for unwarranted presumptions.

Speed: I would say I can handle like a 4 out of 10. Please don't spread analytics. It's not useful and makes me think you probably don't care about what you have to say. I will say clear if I don't understand you and if I don't understand I won't flow it. If you ignore me you will lose speaker points at the very least, and I know you don't want that.

Framework: I really like to see something that tells me what you think is important in the round, otherwise you leave it up to me. Assume I'm not familiar with your philosopher or theory and please explain it. I will not do the work to connect the dots for you on what your card means in the round.

Role of the Judge/Ballot: I will default to the role of a policymaker in a simulation and the ballot as advocating the best policy. I am open to other options, just argue for what you want.

The K: Explain what your K does and how it functions in the round, because it is not as intuitive as you might think. Also, I haven't read everything and assume I do not know what you're talking about. If I don't understand your K, I won't vote on it. I have the capacity to understand Ks, so it is really up to you to explain it. If you didn't write it, I will probably know.

Plans/Counterplans: Plans are not a requirement. General advocacy is fine as long as you maintain a consistent advocacy through the round. Topics are typically broad and I find most arguments for nontopical plans unconvincing. Please do not run a counterplan that is not well thought out. I think a good permutation can be very effective. Also, a solvency advocate and a written plan text are a necessities for me.

Tech Stuff: When video sharing, please do everything you can to be within the camera and keep an appropriate volume. I expect you to send a file during your prep time but we will wait for it to come through without prep. I also do not always have excellent internet, so everyone be patient. I think file sharing is appropriate, and asking them to delete after round is also fair.

[Names of schools, years of graduation]

I debated for [number] years and made it to [a hotel ballroom nobody cares about].

Have fun always, try your best always. Like really I put it at the top for a reason. Don't insult your opponents. Don't be mean to your partner. The more you think you're better than them the more I'm gonna want you to be wrong.

Put me on the email chain please: jacksonemdebate@gmail.com

I wanted to try and come up with a good song for you to listen to as you read my paradigm like I do with every topic. It's kinda hard to hit all three areas of the topic at once, maybe try like this (although it's definitely not long enough). I feel like this might be the closest I can get since it involves like resurrection which I guess is like biotechnology.

General

(Disclaimer: I like to think I judged decently actively on arms sales and cjr (a combined 75 rounds if I'm counting correctly), but the only judging I did on water was a single season opener. On top of that, I've gotten a lot further into my computer science education since the last time I judged - I'm now officially an incoming software engineer - which I'm sure has radically altered the way I think about things, and probably mostly in ways I'm yet to realize. I wrote this paradigm like 3 years ago and it hasn't changed at all (beyond me removing cynical comments about the debate community that I'm no longer qualified to make 3 yrs out of debate), whereas I myself probably have changed somewhat.)

I know jack-squat about [topic], both in terms of the actual issue as well as how people have been debating it this year. So, I can’t wait for you to teach me! What I can assure you of though is that I’ll never go on facebook or anything during either speeches or cross-ex, and frankly that’s more than some judges can say.

Short version: Tech over truth. Long version: Remember that I am mortal. I would say evaluate my argument preferences under the assumption that those arguments have not been dropped/critically under-covered. Everybody says and understands that the judge votes for whoever best persuaded them, and that's true. But, I think what people often miss is that the judge isn't being persuaded in terms of which team they think is "right," but rather which team they think won the round.

Debaters have been telling me that the K has become more popular as judges and debaters have become more familiar with it. I have like, not judged enough at a high enough level to be part of that shift.

[Statements that amount to "Make good arguments"]

Getting the sense defense has become severely underrated.

I get annoyed when judge paradigms tell you to "act like you care," because I think what they're really saying is "act like you care about winning." In reality, all you should be caring about is just debate itself - and that's distinct. So, I'll tell you to care about debate. I'd maintain that policy debate is a very, uh...heuristic environment, and I stuck with it (kinda?) and am better off for it. But if you still don't care, just stop going to debate tournaments if you can. There's nothing wrong with not liking debate or not caring about it, and you don't owe it to anybody to participate if you really just don't wanna. But on a intra-tournament, round-to-round basis, not putting in full effort is probably bad.

Don'ts

Don't read suicide good. Don't read extinction good. Don't read warming good. Don't read racism good. Don't read sexism good. etc.

Boo to the Schlaang super seat and AntoniNO. I'm gonna suggest you don't read Baudrillard (I hope I spelled that incorrectly), both in front of me and in front of all your other judges.

Don't say "no neg fiat." If you read troll arguments like consult asgard or like time triangular pyramid I'll dock the 2N's speaks.

S e n d a n a l y t i c s.

K Affs

I'm not calling them "planless affs" or "performance affs" or wutevr so that might already give you some indication.

The point of debate is to gain critical thinking skills by repeatedly practicing the comparative analysis of theoretical worlds (counting the squo as one) by framing facts and deductions as uniqueness, links, impacts, etc as a means of trying to understand the implication of those facts upon the imagined theoretical worlds. Critical thinking skills =/= the skill of criticizing things - that's just a coincidence in their spelling. Though, it also isn't at all as though those two concepts are just completely decoupled.

You can win without reading a plan, but you're going to have a rough time unless you have some reason why reading your aff and receiving a ballot improves the status quo. There are many ways to accomplish this and I really want you do at least one of them.

I'd say I find many of the framework arguments both neg and aff teams make to be pretty unconvincing and unoriginal. Neg teams, I'd love for you to think about why k affs would be hard to debate against even if they were predictable. Aff teams, I'd love to hear about why an inability to engage institutions irl means it's bad to debate [topic] in theory/as an educational exercise to practice critical thinking. I could write a million of those requests.

This is gonna sound silly, but I honestly don't find fairness or predictability to be that convincing, at least not in the way I often saw them deployed. Like personally, never once have I heard of a high school debater or coach putting in the time to cut a case neg to an aff unless they already knew for a fact that that aff was being read by a team they were particularly afraid of. Yet at the same time, I do not at all think "predictability" is pointless to talk about. For fairness, I guess I'll just say "fairness is an internal link". I encourage you to really think about what people can get out of debate and what things like fairness and predictability really look like and what their implications are.

*Run framework*. Otherwise, I will be sad and not like the round very much so like just please do. If you think running framework is unethical or wutevr please strike me. Lol I had to have at least one of those in here.

Get creative with your 1NCs. Think about what new opportunities unconventional affs might afford you, both in terms of positions and args within flows. If a center-left layperson wouldn't think it's "unethical" to read, I probably won't either.

I feel like a lot of times when aff teams say "debate isn't a game," they still treat it like it is one.

Neg Kritiks

I'll definitely vote for some Ks, but if your link is only "you use the state" or "you use the [topic]” you're gonna have a tough time getting me to vote for the K.

I didn't even actually debate the [topic] topic I'm sorry I was just trying to look edgy.

But seriously, links are the most important part of K debates and DA debates alike because they, and they alone, are the root for any comparative analysis you can do. They are the only direct way for *you* to illustrate a distinction between the world you're advocating for and the world your opponents are advocating. All of your internal links and impacts are just arguments for why that discrepancy matters. (Okay yeah if they're running a CP differences between worlds are more obvious.)

Number one tip I would say - both to the aff and the neg - is just impact out your args. Never assume I know why you auto-win if you "win the ontology debate." Similarly, you need to explain, impact and probably persuade me of things like "fiat isn't real" and "social death." It is likely that your "tricks" are - in my eyes - actually just bad arguments. Don't get me wrong: a dropped arg is a dropped arg, but a prerequisite to something being a dropped arg is it *being an arg*.

****

Also just like generally about "dropped arguments" - an argument being dropped means that it is substantially easier to extend, not that you no longer have to extend it. If you wanna go for a "dropped argument" in front of me then you should make sure to mention that argument's claim and warrant (and, in rebuttals, its implications for how the round should be decided) in every speech from when you first read it until the debate ends.

****

I default to assuming that the K has to have an alt that solves impacts and is mutually exclusive with the aff. If the impacts the k solves aren't as important as the one the aff solves, I'll vote aff.

"Extinction already 'happens, happened, or will have had happened' for x ppl bc social death" is a hard sell for me, especially if you're trying to argue that it means nuclear war isn't bad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iPH-br_eJQ

Go to case. Like with *defense*.

Go to case. Seriously.

CPs

Have as many planks as you want. You can read new planks. You can probably amend existing planks, too.

Having a good solvency advocate (so like one from a source actually written in the context of [topic]) usually makes me think a counter-plan is more theoretically legit.

Love an intelligent counter-plan. I don't like process CPs but they definitely are a thing people read.

Theory and T

Honestly, refer to K aff section.

Probably won't win on T unless the aff really isn't T and there's some concrete, specific abuse. The abuse is less of an internal link to a fairness based-RoB and more just really strong evidence for why their model of debate is bad.

I'm much more likely to vote on theory and T when I'm convinced there was in-round abuse. I lean neg on condo but definitely do not think infinite condo is okay.

Everything Else

[Irrelevant opinions] (I mean to be fair that's like most of this paradigm but)

[Relevant opinions immediately made irrelevant by a barrage of qualifiers]

Other

[Encouraging you to make jokes even though in reality that always plays out really awkwardly in round]

Hello debaters! Thanks for reading my paradigm! I'm a retired debater; I competed in PF for two years and went on to compete in college in an extemp-style of debate called IPDA. My experience in LD is very limited and within the confines of a traditional circuit. As such, I'm willing to listen to progressive argumentation like plans or kritiks, but you're really going to have to explain them to me. I know absolutely nothing about policy.

I frown upon spreading. I believe that debate is meant to be an educational exercise that equips you to succeed in the "real-world." Spreading is, in my view, almost always antithetical to that goal. I will try my very best to keep up, but I'm not above setting my pen down and not flowing until you become coherent.

*I will not vote for arguments I don't understand.* It's your job to give me thorough explanations. Remember that I've not been researching your respective topic for the last month and will need logical explanations and warranting. I need you to walk through why your argument or evidence wins my ballot.

I'm a flow judge; I will only consider things actually said by debaters in the round and am looking for complete arguments including claims, warrants, and impacts.

I don't flow cross, so if something important happens, it won't be on my flow unless you bring it up in a speech.

Things that will automatically cost you the round and/or speaks:

Unnecessary rudeness

Falsifying evidence

Not having fun! :)

Joshua D Rogers Paradigm

Joshua Rogers

B.A. Classics, Ph.D. Linguistics

Director of Forensics & Latin Teacher - Presbyterian Christian High School (Hattiesburg, MS)

Forensics Head Coach - William Carey University

Experience:

Oratory and Communication experience in High School

Discourse and Communication theory in Undergrad and Graduate work

Teaching Speech and Debate since 2015

Basic Judging Paradigm:

I will judge the flow

I want substantive arguments and clash

Weigh your impacts at the end

Bad sportsmanship leads to reduction of points

Don't talk down to the judge

Public Forum: Give evidence, cite, analyze - don't just restate claims three ways. I encourage Neg, don't just rebut, build a world in which you can win.

Lincoln Douglas/Policy:

I attempt to be tabula rasa, but when no decision-rule calculus is provided, I default to understanding and applying morality arguments. I tend to see the debate in an offense/defense paradigm.

I default to competing interpretations on Topicality, and reasonability on all theory. If you define value and criteria, stay with your parameters.

I am fine with speed, but clarity is key.

I particularly enjoy critical debate like Feminism, Foucault, and Security and impact turn debates like Spark & De-development. Not a fan of nihilism but I get the argument.

I would like to be on your email chain (jdrogers @wmcarey.edu) so I can look at cards that your reference in cross-examination.

LD Note: I tend to view the value/value criterion debate as less important than substantive arguments. Impacting your arguments is incredibly important. Cheap shots / tricks are not the way to my ballot (because: reasonability). I also will not vote for an argument I don't understand based on your explanation. I will not read your case later to make up for a lack of clarity when you spread. If I can't flow it, it's like you never made that argument.

Policy: I like to hear clash on evidence. Evaluate evidence since you have it in front of you. But more important, outline and build a plan. Explain how and why it works.

Don't give me outrageous impacts, we all know the world COULD end. Show how the plan results in impact, not just slippery slope.

Neg feel free to build Kritic if you can, always enjoyable.

I would like to be on your email chain (jdrogers @wmcarey.edu) so I can look at cards that your reference in cross-examination.

Experience:

I am somewhat new to judging debate. I performed in speech in high school and I am a performer so rhetoric and persuasive appeal does play a big role with me, please show me that you are confident about your case, even if you’re not. That being said, I do want to take the role seriously and I have done what I could to prepare for it in recognition of your hard work in preparation for debate. Of course I don’t need to tell you that good sportsmanship and professionalism are of the utmost importance.

Expectations:

1. Please do not spread. This just loses my attention in your debate and I will just vote for the person from whom I caught the most thoughts/ideas. Help walk me through your arguments and make sure I hear them: evidence and rebuttals. It would be helpful if you sent me your case: saylorw@gosaints.org

2. Avoid progressive arguments unless you are 100% comfortable and prepared to defend them.

3. During rebuttal/final focus be specific with why you think you won and your opponent lost. This really stands out to me.

I am a math teacher and speech and debate coach at Purvis High School in Purvis, MS. Our primary focus as a team is on speech and interp events, so my experience with debate events is rudimentary.

I judge LD debate, where I would prefer that debaters not spread. I judge primarily on the flow with an emphasis on value and criterion, but I do give a higher weight to presentation than do many debate judges. I feel that debate should not just be an exercise in logic and evidence (though that is the focus), but should also reflect the reality that the way in which information is presented affects its persuasiveness.

I did public forum throughout high school, so I am comfortable with flowing the round and will make my decisions based on the flow. For the final focus (and the rest of the debate), I want the debaters to weigh the impacts for me directly. If one team weighs the impacts of both worlds, and the other team does not, I will be forced to vote for the the former, even if I consider their impacts less important. For the impacts, I will judge them on both their likelihood and their magnitude (I would love it if you considered both of these explicitly and individually). This means that quantifying your impacts is great but only if you clearly articulate the probability of it, so the warrant and the evidence are equally important for me. If this means that one of your impacts outweighs the rest of your case, it might make sense to concentrate exclusively on that argument in the final focus. Speed: I cannot flow properly if a debater is spreading, but I am comfortable with most everything short of that. I like to see reduced speed in the second half of the debate since evidence has mostly been established and the debate is being crystallized.