WSDC asks us to debate on balance and engage with the essential clash of the motion directly. I want to see teams making solid impact analysis and taking the other team's highest ground on directly, while demonstrating to me that they would still prefer their world given a best case scenario outcome on both sides. I also would encourage you all to summarize the debate by the third and reply and give me clash categories / big picture themes. This will help me (and all of your judges) make a clearer decision and process the information of the debate more easily. A judge will find it easier to vote your your side if you make it easy for them to do so by giving the judge what is essentially RFD in your impact analysis and weighing.

I have experience debating in Worlds in high school and British Parliamentary in undergrad and coach a Worlds team currently.

LD Paradigm

While I was a PF debater all throughout high school, I only have ~1 year of experience judging LD. I am familiar with common, traditional jargon used in debate, but am not familiar with the more in-depth strategies, which means that I will default to who has the best arguments/framework with robust impact analysis and effective counterarguments.

Speed

It is the debater's burden to make sure that speech is clear and understandable. While I will not knock spreading/speaking quickly immediately, the faster you speak, the more clearly you must speak and signpost. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it into my flow. I vote off of my flow for all rounds -- whoever has the most consistent flow-through and coverage will likely have the advantage.

Speaker Points

The quality of arguments alone does not impact speaker points, but the better you explain your arguments, your speaks are likely to improve.

As stated earlier, I do not take points off for speed, but if you lack fluency or clarity, your points will be docked.

*If you make any morally reprehensible claims in the round, I reserve the right to drop you. If you are spreading hateful rhetoric, you should be removed from the tournament.*

I've been coaching speech, debate, and interp for seven years and I'm currently the head speech and debate coach at Southlake Carroll in North Texas.

Public Forum: Speed is fine, but don't spread. If you're unclear in PF because of speed, I probably won't tell you because you shouldn't reach that point in PF. Don't be overly aggressive, rude, or shout. Lack of clarity or respect will lead to a serious drop in your speaks.

You should provide me with a clear weighing mechanism and justification for using it. If I have to do this work for you, you don't get to complain about my decisions. Remember that public forum is meant to be understood by anyone off the street so don't expect me to be impressed by sloppy attempts at policy tactics.

Second speaking teams don't have to defend their case in rebuttal, though it doesn't hurt to. Just because something was said in cross doesn't mean that I'm going to flow it, though I will be paying attention to it. Please don't waste cross. This is my biggest pet peeve. Give clear voters in the final focus and do your best to go straight down the flow. If you jump around the flow and I miss something, that's on you.

Email: flynnmakuch@gmail.com

***you know what is absolutely CX or your prep time? asking the other teams which cards they read or didn't read. you are responsible for flowing and don't get free time to compensate for your inability to do so. a "marked doc" does not mean a new doc where the other team removes all the cards they didnt read

a few virtual/hybrid debate things:

-audio is less intelligible than in person -- make sure you're really clearly enunciating -- i'll yell clear 2-3 times and my facial expressions will be obvious if i can't flow you and then frankly the L is on you pal

(tbh i think most people would benefit from going a bit slower even in person. don't sacrifice judge understanding at the altar of reading that last card)

-MAKE SURE you get a thumbs up or a yes that I'm ready before you start

-prep stops when you've attached the document to the email it shouldn't take you more than 5 seconds from after you've said stop prep to have pressing send on the email

My pronouns are they/them and my last name is pronounced "MACK-oo."

I have judged close to a million rounds

debate history: -HS GBN (2x TOC elims, RRs) - College Texas (2x NDT elims, RRs) -Colleges coached: WSU, UCO, Emory, NU -HSs coached: bronx science, edgemont, GBS, westwood, damien -taught/directed at many camps every summer over the last 12 years -currently assistant coach for NU and used to work full time at the Chicago Debate League + judge/direct lots of tournaments

TOP LEVEL:

Even though I read as arguments and studied critical literature about race, gender, colonialism, and sexuality in college, my HS background was exclusively "policy," and I continue to do research and coach in both areas.

In the post round, if you'd like to seek advice or challenge components of my thinking or note your disagreement or be grumpy or try to get my ballot in the future or try to understand my decision, I would love to discuss my decision with you! If you are into post-rounding as some weird ego thing where you need to demonstrate that you couldn't possibly have lost a debate by berating the judge, then you should not pref me.

I take a while/my time to decide debates, so time-wasting during a debate is truly to your detriment.

After the 2XR, please send me a judge doc with the (marked version) of ONLY the cards you extended.

Things I am really interested in:

--lots of evidence comparison!! this very often shifts my decisions and honestly y'all have become not that good at doing this consistently. a great 2XR will explicitly indict every piece of evidence the other team has read on the position they are extending

--nuanced impact/il comparison

--framing arguments and judge instruction!!!!!!!

--even if arguments -- recognizing where you might be losing

--beginning the 2XR with what you want the RFD to be very explicitly

--in depth explanations -- more warrants! i feel QUITE confident just jettisoning arguments that weren't explained

--strategic concessions + cross applications

--thoughtful and consistent analytics

--attentive line by line

--(hate to have to say this) 2NRs that take advantage of 1AR dropped arguments. It will hurt your speaker points a little if there's a clear path to victory that you ignore entirely

Things I am not interested in:

--cruelty

--inserting long rehighlightings

--long overviews - LINE BY LINE is where those overview arguments fit my friends. i promise you can find a spot if u look

--being rude to your partner

--scholarship/behavior that is morally reprehensible

--"if you vote X you'll have to look me in the eye and explain..., etc." type of inefficient judge strong-arming

--multiple paragraph tags

--mumble spreading on the text of cards

--things that happened outside of the round

--highlighting into sentence fragments

When cx time is over, both teams need to stop talking unless someone wants to take prep.

Make sure you time yourselves, because I WILL forget at some point

Pointing out that something was conceded is not the same as extending that argument. Author names or claims without warrants are not arguments. I think I have a higher standard than most for this. A conceded assertion is still not an argument. Yes ofc, your burden of explanation is substantially reduced, but there's gotta be something.

Framework:

Things I am interested in:

--saying anything new or unique if possible - tbh i judge mostly fw debates and i promise you i have already heard your blocks many times and i am bored

--the solvency mechanism of the aff, whatever solvency means in the context of the affirmative

--clash impacts in the context of skills gained from debate

--whether the aff is contestable

--a good ol' topical version of the aff that addresses impact turns

--impact framing arguments

--line by line refutation

--well developed impact turns to the neg's interpretation/TVA that don't apply to a counter interpretation

--counter interpretations that address some of the neg's clash/limits arguments

--slowing down when reading consecutive paragraphs of text you have typed for 2nr/2ar

Things I am less interested in:

--affs that are descriptive but not prescriptive -- it's easy to say something is bad, even in a very theoretically dense, educational, interesting way. the more difficult question is determining the best method (not picky about what this is) for addressing or approaching the problem described

--fairness as an impact in and of itself -- it's an internal link to an impact (in my default view, though I end up voting for it pretty frequently bc not well contested)

--long, pre-written "overviews" where you address none of the line by line (both sides are very bad about doing this)

(As an aside, if the aff says they'll defend they link to DA(s), I would always strongly prefer the neg take them up on a substantive debate. That's not to say the neg shouldn't go for framework if that's their heart's desire, only that I find a substantive debate more interesting.)

Counterplans:

Whatever re: the whole thing. I truly have no strong feelings/beliefs about conditionality either way, other than it'll be tough to win 1 is bad. But, I decide that like I decide all things: based on the arguments actually presented in the theory debate.

Exception to that -- perms are just no link arguments to the opportunity cost of the CP, so I will never vote that dropped perm theory arguments are a reason to reject the team.

DAs:

See plea for evidence and impact comparison above. When I get a stack of cards at the end of the debate, it's going to be annoying for both of us that I now just have to render judgment on each of them with no guidance.

Please make more smart, warranted analytics about why the DA is nonsense. A lot of DAs don't pass the test of being a complete argument if the full text of the cards are read and you just take a second to actually think about it.

I expect a high degree of technical proficiency in these debates.

Ks:

Can we please being doing more line by line?

Neg needs SPECIFICITY in your explanation of the aff. Highly specific cards to the aff are not necessary, though helpful, to make specific links, alt solves, turns case, root cause arguments etc. Reference/quote the aff's 1ac ev. Use historical examples. Make logical arguments.

What is the impact to the link in the context of turning/implicating the aff? If you can't answer this question I don't think the link is all that useful unless it's a top level thesis claim. The more contextual your explanation of every facet of the k is to the aff, the more likely you will win that part of the debate and the higher your speaker points will be.

Against policy affs, you will likely win a link, so focus your attentions on defeating the impact turns/case outweighs arguments from the jump. Opposite for k affs -- less focus on impact, instead focus on in depth contextual explanations of the link and how it turns the aff, the alt solves aff impact better, DAs to the perm that aren't just links to the aff, etc.

I almost always find the framework debate to be a huge waste of everyone's time. Both sides get to weigh their stuff -- there are NO debate theory arguments I find persuasive responding to that. Please just spend this time clashing over the substance of the K/aff (things like epistemology/discourse first are substantive arguments btw). This is my most biased opinion, in that it's the only place I consider intervening -- I will almost always err towards allowing both teams to access their substance, even if one team isn't doing very well on the fw debate. If I'm the only judge, feel free to spend VERY little time here.

Finally, almost every argument in the overview should/could be on the line by line.

When aff vs. the K, know thyself. Before the tournament you should know what you want the 2AR to be against Ks. Hint: it's probably not the perm if you're not reading a k aff

T:

Debates about reasonability are usually so shallow as to be meaningless.

Let me save you time:

You: "What did you think about [x argument/author name]"???!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Me: "I didn't think about it that much because you didn't tell me to/you didn't speak about it enough or in a way that made it relevant to my decision making process."

However:

I do try to be thorough. Debaters have worked hard to get here, so it's my obligation to work hard to assess the debate.

**************

This is the best cx I've ever seen and a very important video to me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2rgzsO-AMM

Flow judge who appreciates civility, especially in cross, which should be used for asking and answering questions, not speech making. Generally, a question may be followed by a follow-up, after which it is the turn of the other side. Starting the first constructives with key definitional and framework arguments is a good idea, as is providing, in FF, your view on how the impacts should be weighed. Try to terminalize your impacts in terms of values, including human life, equity, the environment, etc. Debaters should keep their own time only, and provide their account of how much prep time remains after each instance in which they take some and reconcile it with me if I have a discrepancy. Evidence should be represented with scrupulous accuracy, and the source should be fully identified, including the credentials of the writer, the date, and the publication. If I call for a card and observe that the evidence is old and you didn't give a date, I'll be concerned. Likewise, if you use evidence in a way that's misleading, I won't be pleased, e.g. if you use it to make a general claim when it's talking about a specific instance that bears little relation to the contention it's being used to support. Evidentiary challenges should be presented to me immediately after the final speech. Stylistically, debaters should speak clearly and audibly, while avoiding shouting. Speed will always be an issue, and debaters are urged to pace themselves mindfully of their opponents and judge(s).

Policy Update

Please see the above, as applicable, especially as regards civility. I prefer that issues of framework, topicality, definition, and interpretation be dealt with up front. Creativity is fine, but it must be firmly grounded in the reasonable. New arguments should not be presented in the rebuttal speeches, although there's always a judgment call when they're coming in as blocks. Clash is good; clash nullification is problematic. Plans should be substantive and intended to further policy objectives, not trivial and intended simply to confound the opposition.

World Schools Debate Update

I suggest clarifying what is at stake in the debate early on, i.e. if the motion carries, what would be the implications beyond the specific impacts. For example, in a debate on restrictions on hate speech, there might be a lively debate about whether or not the Prop model would, say, have the impact of reducing bias-motivated violence, but I'd also be interested in a framework and definitional analysis of whether hate speech is an instance of free speech, and, more broadly what we'd be both gaining and giving up philosophically if the motion were to carry. Similarly, I'd be interested in hearing about what the standards would be to make a determination that speech was in a prohibited category and who would make these judgments. In other words, this discipline affords an opportunity both to consider PF-style impacts and also the broader, philosophical dimensions of the topic. I'm also interested in each team's thoughts on burdens, both the other side's and its own. What do you think you have to prove in order to win the round? What should your opponents be required to prove? Of course, examples are important, but often I need to know the context, what you're trying to prove, and how the example proves your point. In the example above, perhaps there's a country that has criminalized a certain category of speech. Is there a particular historical or cultural context that we need to know if we are to understand why they did so? Is the example generally applicable, i.e. would its example be desirable in many countries with different histories and cultures? I'm fine with your collapsing a round to your view of the fundamental clashes that should determine the outcome, but I suggest you not ignore an opponent's argument, even if you elect not to extend your analysis of it, i.e. point out why you're dropping it; otherwise, I might think you've overlooked it or are conceding it without showing why doing so is strategic. In terms of style, with eight minutes, there's no reason to talk rapidly or, heaven forfend, begin shouting, or go overtime. You can show your passion through the clarity and cogency of your argumentation, but try to remain calm. Ultimately, you win the debate by persuading me that your side of the motion's world is more desirable than your opponent's--for the reasons you have successfully argued. On POIs, my preference is that a debater signals a POI with their hand, whereupon the speaker, when they notice the signal, either takes the point or gently waves it down. Since the speaker now knows that the opponent has a point, it is not necessary for the opponent to resignal the original point or a different one; however, it's courteous for the speaker to pause before waiting too long to take the POIs they wish to recognize. I do tend to think that each speaker should take two per constructive. Having taken two, if the opponents wish to pose one or more additional points, the speaker may say that they will be taking no further points during that speech. Just a suggestion.

I spent 9 years as a debater at the college( Diablo Valley College and CSU Long Beach) and high school ( De La Salle HS, Concord, Ca) levels. I am now in my 10th year of coaching and my 9th year of judging. So I've heard almost every argument out there. I mostly competed in parli and policy, but I did some LD as well. I am ok with Kritiks, Counter Plans, and plans. I like good framework and value debate. I am cool with spreading but articulation is key!!! I am a flow judge so sign posting and organization is important. Please weigh impacts and give me voters. In LD make sure you link to a framework and a value and explain why you win under those guidelines. I prefer a more traditional LD debate and I defiantly prefer truth over tech.

I have a lot of experience competing in debate as a high school and college student (30 years), so you can expect me to be passionate about the issues you are speaking for and against but I will not bring personal preferences into debate like some other judges. I judge various events so here is a general outline of what I am looking for in a speech:

1. Passion - no matter what I want to see that you care about what you are speaking about. If this is lacking you can expect a poor ballot.

2. Good Arguments - when I have a tie between two capable and passionate debaters, this is where I go to break the tie. If you repeat arguments expect a poor ballot. Also note for formats like WSD and LD, I will try my best to flow the round, but you need to tell me arguments are dropped. I look for sound reasoning and logic flow in all of the debates and in LD, PF and other evidence based debates I will be asking you to read all of your cards.

3. Inflection and Voice - If I lose interest during your speech you are doing something wrong. Keep me engaged throughout. If you lose me when you are describing an argument you will not be on my flow and I will drop that argument completely.

4. Any type of rudeness and any chance at cutting other competitors speaking time (especially for POs in congress) will result in the lowest rank possible. RESPECT PRONOUNS and POI choices.

Please put me on the email chain - amyleighsantos@gmail.com

I debated for 3 years at Presentation High School in LD and policy and coached throughout college. I mostly read critical arguments, as well as some policy oriented stuff. I am probably not the best judge for phil/tricks, but that being said, you should read whatever you feel most comfortable with in front of me! I am absolutely fine with speed but I haven’t judged much lately so it would be helpful for me if you start slow. More specifics:

Ks: I really love K debate, as as I mentioned above, that’s what I read most of in high school. However, I will not just vote for you because I like the K, so please make sure you’re explaining the story of the K, putting in the work on the link and framing debates, etc. I also really loved reading K affs (I was big into fem stuff in high school) but make sure you are clearly articulating a reason to vote aff and what the aff actually does. I am looking for an explanation of what your method actually looks like in practice, and why it means I should vote for you.

Policy/LARP: I also really enjoy policy debate! I don’t think there’s really much to say here but I appreciate good evidence comparison, impact weighing, and overviews.

Framework/T: I love a good framework debate, but it's also in your best interest to engage the substance of the aff! I think the more specific your framework/T shell is, the more interesting/strategic

Theory: I don't mind theory but these debates tend to get messy, so try to keep it clean and maybe go a little slower.

Phil/tricks: I am really not a good judge for phil and don't particularly enjoy it, sorry :,(

The easiest way to win in front of me is to really clearly and explicitly explain your position and why you're winning. Collapsing to a few main arguments and explaining them well is always better than having too many arguments that aren't impacted or explained very well.

My favorite part about debate is when students are passionate about what they defend and read positions they care about. Please don't be sexist, racist, ableist, trans/homophobic, etc.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain. jmsimsrox@gmail.com

UT '21 update (since I'm judging policy): I judge probably around a dozen policy rounds on the DFW local circuit a year (since about 2011), so I'm not a policy debate expert but I shouldn't be confused by your round. That means that I will probably understand the arguments you're making in a vacuum, but that you should probably err on the side of over-explaining how you think those arguments should interact with each other; don't just expect me to be operating off the exact same policy norms that you/the national circuit do. I am fairly willing to evaluate arguments however you tell me to. I have read a decent bit of identity, setcol, and cap lit. I am less good on pomo lit but I am not unwilling to vote on anything I can understand. Totally down for just a plan v counterplan/disad debate too.

Tl;dr I'm fine with really any argument you want to read as long as it links to and is weighed in relation to some evaluative mechanism. I am pretty convinced that T/theory should always be an issue of reasonability (I obviously think that some debates are better when there is a clear counter-interp that offense is linked back to); if you trust me to compare and weigh offense on substantive issues in the debate, I can't figure out why you wouldn't also trust me to make the same judgments on T/theory debates (unless you're just making frivolous/bad T/theory args). I enjoy any debate that you think you can execute well (yeah this applies to your K/counter-plan/non-T aff; I'll listen to it). I base speaker points on whether or not I think that you are making strategic choices that might lead to me voting for you (extending unnecessary args instead of prioritizing things that contribute to your ballot story, dropping critical arguments that either are necessary for your position or that majorly help your opponent, failing to weigh arguments in relation to each other/the standard would be some general examples of things that would cause you to lose speaker points if I am judging). Beyond those issues, I think that debate should function as a safe space for anyone involved; any effort to undermine the safety (or perceived safety) of others in the activity will upset me greatly and result in anything from a pretty severe loss of speaker points to losing the round depending on the severity of the harm done. So, be nice (or at least respectful) and do you!

My name is Nicole Stachowiak, I am a former debater and current student of the University of Chicago. You might be familiar with my last name because of my two sisters, Aimee and Natalie, who competed in the same World Schools circuit recently (I competed a little less recently).

Back in my day, I primarily competed World Schools, but also did Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum during high school. However, in World Schools, please try to keep your argumentation and manner in line with World Schools norms- try not to spread, focus on the global community, you know the drill. 

I value reasonable arguments with appropriate weighing- if I understand why your argument is important in the context of the round, I will consider it heavily. Ultimately, your argumentation will win you or lose you the round.

I try not to do work for you or the other team. If your opponents have a contradictory or flimsy argument, or if they only respond to an example and not your analysis, address it, otherwise I will not take any perceived deficiencies into account. My judgement is ideally based directly off what you say in-round.

I enjoy principled arguments. Don't be rude to your opponents. Avoid being repetitive, and try to give new analysis when carrying arguments down the bench.

I have been involved with debate as a participant, judge, school coach, national team coach, and UDL Executive Director. I have coached multiple state and national championships in the following events: Congress, LD, Policy, and World Schools Debate; Extemporaneous and Impromptu Speaking; and Prose/Poetry/Program of Oral Interpretation. I coached the 2023 WSDC World Champions as well.

I believe that speech and debate provides transformative life skills and that my role in the round is adjudicator/educator.

All speeches should be communicative in delivery, persuasive in style, and adhere to ethical standards in every aspect. Respect should be displayed to all involved, at all times.

In a competitive space, your role as a speaker/performer is to persuade me that your arguments/reasoning/evidence/performance is more compelling than the other competitors in the round. I will endeavor to base my decision on what happens IN the round and what I write on my flow, but I don't leave my brain at the door. Act accordingly.

I currently judge more WS rounds than anything else. WSDC/NSDA/TSDA norms should be adhered to. Speaking should be conversational as regards speed/style. Refutation may be line-by-line or utilize grouping, but you need to be clear where you are on the flow. Weighing is key. Stick to the heart of the motion and avoid the extremes. Unless the motion is US-specific you should provide international examples. Make it clear what your side of the debate looks like: what does the world of the Prop look like? the Opp? Framing/definitions/models should be fair and in the middle of the motion. Stakeholders should be clear; put a face on the motion.

A good debate round is a thing of beauty; respect your craft, the event, and your fellow competitors.

I have been doing debate for over 8 years now and have debated in pretty much every format possible both in America and Canada. If you have specific questions that aren't covered here, ask me before hand.

TL:DR - I like quality debates that are built on good strategic decisions that are appropriate in the context of your format. I do not believe in replacing thorough and nuanced logic and explanations with jargon, even in the interest of efficiency. IF YOU HAVE ME AS A WSD JUDGE, THERE IS A SPECIFIC SECTION BELOW.

While I can keep up with pretty much anything you run, I will not do any work for you. If you are competing in an American debate format and are running something progressive, assuming its appropriate for your format, make sure you do everything you need to do to make it a convincing and mechanically complete argument. That includes explaining what you're running and why you're running it. While I likely have experience with the progressive arguments you are running, in the interest of judging tabula rasa, I will pretend I have none.

I can keep up with spreading but would prefer not too. If you are going to spread, flash me your case beforehand.

I have nearly zero tolerance for tactics and strategies that are exclusionary to your opponent and other debaters in general, especially when those tactics are used against newer debaters. I will not awards losses for this behavior because I realize it is somewhat subjective, but I will adjust speaker points.

WORLD SCHOOLS SPECIFIC INFO

WSD is not an American format and I have zero tolerance for debaters that treat it like one. Understand the different assumptions and rules that underpin WSD before debating in it and do not assume they are the same as American debate formats because they are not. While there are many differences, here are some key ones to keep in mind:

- No cards

- No technical jargon

- No progressive arguments

- No spreading

- Greater emphasis on rhetoric and logic

- Debates must focus on the core of the issue rather than niche arguments

- It is acceptable to drop arguments if they are no longer important. Dropped arguments do not immediately mean a team has won

- MOST IMPORTANTLY: WSD debates are focused on the entire world, or some reasonably large segment of it, rather than just America

With that being said, WSD is a growing format in the US and I understand and respect that. People will make mistakes and default to habits from American formats and that is okay as long as you are not intentionally trying to change the format by bringing in American debate strategies and rules.

As a debater: 4 years HS debate in Missouri, 4 years NDT-CEDA debate at the University of Georgia

Since then: coached at the University of Southern California (NDT-CEDA), coached at the University of Wyoming (NDT-CEDA), worked full-time at the Chicago UDL, coached (and taught math) at Solorio HS in the Chicago UDL

Now: Math teacher and debate coach at Von Steuben in the Chicago UDL, lab leader at the Michigan Classic Camp over the summer

HS Email Chains, please use: vayonter@cps.edu

College Email Chains: victoriayonter@gmail.com

General Thoughts:

1. Clarity > speed: Clarity helps everyone. Please slow down for online debate. You should not speak as fast as you did in person. Much like video is transmitted through frames rather than continuous like in real life, sound is transmitted through tiny segments. These segments are not engineered for spreading.

2. Neg positions: I find myself voting more often on the "top part" of any neg position. Explain how the plan causes the DA, how the CP solves the case (and how it works!), and how the K links to the aff and how the world of the alt functions. Similarly, I prefer CPs with solvency advocates (and without a single card they are probably unpredictable). I love when the K or DA turns the case and solves X impact. If you don't explain the link to the case and how you get to the impact, it doesn't matter if you're winning impact calculus.

3. K affs: Despite my tendency to read plans as a debater, if you win the warrants of why it needs to be part of debate/debate topic, then I'll vote on it. As a coach and judge, I read far more critical literature now than I did as a debater. My extensive voting history is on here. Do with that what you will.

4. Warrants: Don't highlight to a point where your card has no warrants. Extend warrants, not just tags. If you keep referring to a specific piece of evidence or say "read this card," I will hold you to what it says, good or bad. Hopefully it makes the claims you tell me it does.

Random Notes:

1. Don't be rude in cross-x. If your opponent is not answering your questions well in cross-x either they are trying to be obnoxious or you are not asking good questions. Too often, it's the latter.

2. Questions about what your opponent read belong in cross-x or prep time. You should be flowing.

3. While we are waiting for speech docs to appear in our inboxes, I will often fill this time with random conversation for 3 reasons:

i. To prevent prep stealing,

ii. To get a baseline of everyone's speaking voice to appropriately assign speaker points and to appropriately yell "clear" (if you have a speech impediment, accent, or other reason for a lack of clarity to my ears, understanding your baseline helps me give fair speaker points),

iii. To make debate rounds less hostile.

High School LD Specific:

Values: I competed in a very traditional form of LD in high school (as well as nearly every speech and debate event that existed back then). I view values and value criterions similarly to framing arguments in policy debate. If you win how I should evaluate the debate and that you do the best job of winning under that interpretation, then I'll happily vote for you.

Ballot Writing: LD speeches are short, but doing a little bit of "ballot writing" (what you want me to say in my reason for decision) would go a long way.

Public Forum Specific:

I strongly believe that Public Forum should be a public forum. This is not the format for spreading or policy debate jargon. My policy background as a judge does not negate the purpose of public forum.

Update for Stanford 02/08/20 Elims: Please!! Slow down!! Zoom and the online format just simply cannot handle full speaking speed! P l e a s e. If I cannot understand what you're saying because you are are not accommodating the online format, I just won't flow it. I can only flow what your audio can accommodate!

Update for Stanford 02/05/20: This is my first time judging this topic, and I am not very familiar with the lit/terminology, so please explain acronyms, critical terms, etc. very clearly.

Update for Apple Valley 10/06/20: I cannot overemphasize the importance of slowing down your speaking speed for online debate! Even when you think you have slowed down, please slow down another 20% just to accommodate for delays and weird technical hiccups. As such, you will likely need to adjust the amount of material in each speech to match the slower speed, so please prepare accordingly!

Update for Yale 10/02/20: Online debating is challenging for a number of reasons, but technological difficulties (e.g. unclear audio, static) can uniquely hinder auditory comprehension. As such, please slow down more than you think you need to when speaking to account for these issues; similarly, it is more than imperative that you proactively disclose all relevant materials with myself and your opponent via email chain to ensure clarity.

--

Hello! My name is Liz Yount (she/her/hers), and I’m currently a senior at The George Washington University studying English with a concentration in Critical Theory/Cultural Studies and Classical & Near Eastern Studies. I debated at Harvard-Westlake for three years, as well as on the NSDA’s USA Debate Team for two years. I have experience in Lincoln Douglas, Worlds Schools, and British Parliamentary debate formats.

I will be generally responsive to most lines of argumentation (except those explicitly stated below). If you are reading a position you find meaningful and generating a passionate discussion, I will certainly pick up on that. Do what you do best, as long as you are making good arguments and being respectful. I also love coaching debate! If you have questions, please ask!

Important/Must Read:

1. Disclosure: Please flash. This is fairly self-explanatory. I’m not going to count every second you spend emailing/passing a flash drive, but if it becomes superfluous I will be annoyed. Please include me on every email chain. I will read your cards/analytics/whatever and compare it against your in-round performance. If there is a discrepancy, that would be bad. My emails are lizyount@gwmail.gwu.edu and liz.yount22@gmail.com. Feel free to include both emails if you want to ensure I have received your documents. If I do not receive your spoken material via email or other means, I will assume you did not read this and, consequently, deduct speaks.

2. Trigger Warnings: Mandatory for all debates in which potentially difficult material is presented, such as sexual violence, suicide, police brutality, etc. You must provide a verbal trigger warning before presenting potentially trigger material. As debaters, the onus is on YOU to adjust your material to the room; that is to say, debaters and judges, unlike spectators, cannot leave, so if one of us feels triggered by material, you must have a secondary strategy prepared. You are also not the judge of whether someone else is triggered. (*Important Note: Please do not read narratives of sexual violence in front of me! I will leave the room and the ballot will reflect the fact that you did not take my statement into account. Thank you in advance for being respectful!) Rodrigo Paramo’s paradigm also echoes my thoughts on this subject in more depth, if you would like further explanation.

3. Speaks/Respecting the Debate Space: Your speaks are inextricably linked with your treatment of the debate space. Clearly good argumentation warrants higher speaks (which I will go into), but maintaining the integrity of debate as a safe classroom is highly important to me. I will not vote on arguments that are racist, sexist, ableist, etc. Please do not cut your opponent off during CX each time they begin to answer your question or be condescending. Understand the way power dynamics function in debate and act accordingly; that is to say, no mansplaining, whitesplaining, etc. Asking for pronouns is also encouraged. If your opponent is significantly less experienced than you, there is no need to outspread them on a complicated position. If you are exhibiting toxic behavior, I have no issue intervening with my ballot after the round, or during round if the behavior is becoming particularly dangerous.

4. Speed: I will not flow what I cannot understand. Quality over quantity. I would much rather you clearly read one off and utilize it well than spew through a million things. Similarly, do not go for five blippy arguments when you could go for one fully articulated one (see: Extension). If you include me on your email chain, as requested, there should not be a speed issue; however, I will say clear twice if necessary. After that, I will just begin deducting speaks.

Arguments:

1. Policy: Great! I read a lot of policy arguments when I debated. Please have an explicit perm text which is written and disseminated to judge/opponent and ideally supported by some kind of textual advocacy. I would much rather you read one well explained perm than three quick “perm do something” then move on. Again, quality over quantity. Simply stating “perm do both” does not generate offense. You must make it explicitly clear why the perm is a voting issue for you.

2. Kritiks: This is my favorite type of argument, but it can very, very quickly become my least favorite in a given round. Debating in LD partly influenced me to pursue a higher degree in cultural critique. With that said, DO NOT read bizarre positions you do not understand that only vaguely apply to the debate. Before you read a K, ask yourself these questions:

a. Have I actually read the article/book from which the K is cut? If not, do not read the K.

b. Can I explain the K using terms other than buzzwords? If not, do not read the K.

c. Does my K have a topic-specific link, or am I reading it for kicks? If not, do not read the K.

d. Does my K have an explicit alt of some nature? If not, do not read the K.

I will not vote on a poorly articulated K simply because it is a K, nor will I cut you technical slack for reading a “difficult position.” In fact, the standard for what constitutes good explanation/extension is higher given the nuanced nature of the literature. If you cannot explain your position or are clearly being disingenuous to the literature with the hope that either your opponent or I will fall for your doctored version of the material, I assure you that will not work and my disappointment will likely be reflected on my face and in the ballot. That being said, if you understand the position, have read the literature, and execute your K well, you will make me extremely happy and likely get very high speaks.

3. Theory: Slow down on theory! Especially interps. I was never big on theory when I debated and still am not. Clearly if there exists a true violation, go for it; however, if you like to read frivolous theory just for the sake of reading theory, do not pref me. I also default to competing interps. If you spend your 2ar going for time skew, I will be sad. Finally, please do not make a blippy and unsubstantiated “I meet” claim and move on.

4. Topicality: I am probably 50/50 on K vs. T must defend the topic. I like the topic, and it exists for a reason; however, if there exists valid ground to critique the topic, I will also be responsive assuming (a-d) under Kritiks is met.

5. FW/Phil: (Do people even read this position anymore?) Anyway, I enjoy philosophy and have read a lot of ethics, political theory, etc. My same standards for Ks also apply to dense philosophical positions (see Kritiks, a-d). If you read a thousand bizarre analytics and spikes/tricks with the intention of being confusing, I will be sad.

6. Spikes/Tricks/Skep: Yikes.

Technical/Other:

1. Extension: I have a relatively high standard for what constitutes proper extension. I will lean Aff in a debate wherein Neg has presented a lot of good arguments but underextends them in the NR. Conversely, whatever unequal speech time distribution that might exist does not give Aff a blank check to underextend. It is not enough to solely extend impacts. You must also extend the warrant behind the impact in order to fully have extended the argument. Again, quality over quantity.

2. Overviews: These can be good, but please do not read a long K overview in the NR without explaining how the K interacts with the Aff. Please signpost and follow the line-by-line.

3. Dumping Turns: It is probably a good thing to read turns to the AC. (That should go without saying). It is not good, however, to dump a ton of tangential cards without indicating how they interact with the Aff and then going for a blippy “drops = conceded” argument in the NR. Again, quality over quantity. (Are you sensing a trend?)

If you have any questions about anything stated above, please do not hesitate to email me or ask before the round. Overall, please have fun and be respectful!