As the parent of 3 speech and debaters, I have judged for a total of 12 years. In deciding who wins a round I value communication and logic. A conversational speed of speech allows judges to understand your words and to process your ideas and your logic. Avoid jargon (both speech & debate jargon AND jargon that relates to the topic) and

Don't make your judge(s) work. Your logic should be front and center and clear; judges shouldn't have to look for it. I'm looking for a "red thread of logic". The other side of the debate will attempt to cut your thread of logic and you will attempt to knot those ends to reconnect your thread. Sometimes speech and debaters cut their own thread (not enunciating, speaking too quickly, swallowing taglines, using jargon and acronyms). Debaters, your responsibility is to present ideas and supporting evidence and to help me understand your case. It is not a judge's responsibility to "figure out" your case and logic (or lack thereof).

Off-time Road Maps: In Policy, yes, please provide one. In all other forms of debate, please do NOT. Quality debaters typically tend to work it seamlessly into their speeches.

Timing: Please time yourself and the others, which frees me to focus my energies on judging the debate.

Prep Time: Please request to use prep time. Time yourself and let me know either how much time you used or how much time you have remaining. I'll confirm that. This allows you to use prep time without someone interrupting you to tell you how much time you've used.

Policy Debaters: While I have judged policy and am a competent judge; however, I am not a confident policy judge. Competent, yes; confident, no. When using policy jargon, I find it helpful to be reminded to what it refers. I do NOT consult evidence you provide via email or some such. I judge solely on the evidence you state in speeches and then only to the extent I comprehend your words and process your ideas. After all, I can't judge based on what I do not understand.)

Spreading is fine, but if you go so fast I stop writing, that's because I can't understand you. Your points cannot be added to the flow if I do not understand them. This will not happen often, but if you see me put the pen down, you are going too fast.

Please refrain from abusing theory until it drops dead and needs its corpse moved around on a marionette. You will be penalized for shameless abuse of debate.

I did LD, some Policy/CX, and Congress in high school.

Background: Former LD, CX and PF debater

I’m tabula rasa on most things, just don’t advocate for positions that are evil or trollish.

I will attempt to respect the norms of the circuit and tournament I am judging at; I do not want to impose on any particular debate style but I am also open to hearing theoretical arguments during the round.

While evidence is good, I believe too often many rely on ‘evidence dumping’ and focus too little on analytics. Basically, spend a fair amount of time framing, contextualizing, weighing, clash, etc.

For speaker points, I base it off everything but your physical speaking ability. How well did I think you navigated the round, how did you choose to order arguments, and overall strategy contribute a lot here.

Respect each other and please signpost!

If you have questions please let me know.

bennettjamesbrown@gmail.com

I have been coaching debate, speech, interp, and congress since 2011. I am pretty open to most types of debate, but I have some specific requirements for the individual debates and overall.

All Debates

Flow: I am generally a flow judge unless the event dictates otherwise. For PF, LD, and CX I will decide my win based on my flow.

Speed: I am fine with speed. That being said, I do expect to understand your SPEECH while you are giving it. If your speed causes you to slur words, not be understandable, or go too fast to make the round enjoyable, I will take off speaker points.

Courtesy: I expect a level of courtesy from all debaters at all times. If you ask a question, let your opponent answer. I also expect those answering questions to not waste time and answer with that in mind. Any form of discrimination WILL NOT BE TOLERATED in argumentation or remarks to one another. I will give you the loss and report you to tab if you make sexist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, ableist, or any other sort of discriminatory remarks. Additionally, I expect you to treat your opponents with respect. Calling them "liars" or implying or saying they are a worse debater than you is not a way to get on my good side.

Abusive Debate: I am a pretty intelligent lady, so I expect you to refrain from telling me what is on the ballot and follow what is on the ballot in the round----you should win with your arguments, not weaponizing rules. Focus on the debate, not reading to me what the ballot says. I can entertain some theory debate, but if you spend the whole round on that and not debating the topic at hand (or actively K'ing it effectively), you've lost me. Calling your opponent abusive without providing substantial support won't win you anything in my book, but remember, you should be able to win on the merits of the debate itself.

Weighing: I appreciate the active weighing of impacts in rounds; however, I do not immediately jump to a nuclear war impact or extinction impact without CLEAR LINKS that the resolution will make that happen. We live in a world where those things are possible by just walking outside, so I need to see the WHY of these arguments specific to the debate itself. Weighing only works if there are links to those impacts.

Tech/Truth: I will be honest- I am more of a "truth" person. I believe in discussing real-world issues in the round. However, I appreciate tech arguments as long as they fit within the confines of the debate.

Evidence: Clipping or misconstruing evidence will earn you a loss.

Specific Debates

Public Forum: I expect good speaking in public forum and accessibility to what you are saying. Public Forum needs to be as much about analysis and rhetoric as it is about evidence. Do not run plans in Public Forum.

Lincoln-Douglas: I do expect some framework debate, and I do not think LD is a one-person policy round. There needs to be active engagement with the opposing side. I am not a HUGE fan of plans/counterplans in LD, but K’s are fine.

Policy: I am pretty much down for anything, but I expect you to engage with the opposing side. I am likely to vote on T, especially if a plan or counterplan is abusive. All that said, CX should still be organized and involve good speaking skills.

Big Questions and World Schools- I expect these to be respectful debates that resemble a conversation about the topic rather than an attack on your opponent.

World Schools (specifically)- In World Schools, this should look like World Schools- NOT POLICY. I will not entertain spreading, over-sourcing, or not using good style, strategy, etc. For prepared motions, I also will not entertain abusive debate that is so limited it is impossible to prepare for before the tournament. Do Policy if you like Policy that much.

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???

I did Speech and Debate for 4 years. I did Original Oratory, Expository Speaking, Prose, Poetry, Congress, and some Policy.

I may stop writing now and again, but this is so that I can focus on what you are saying (I usually just jot down what sticks out). Spreading is fine, but if you can refrain from doing so I'd rather actually hear your points, so be clear. Keep it classy and be nice to your opponents. Don't falsify evidence. Be thorough with your arguments and tell me why you should win.

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

I coach IPDA debate (an extemporaneous form of debate) at the college level and actively assist with LD and PF at the high school level. I'm also a non-practicing lawyer who works in legal/regulatory compliance, for what that's worth.

In terms of experience, a good summary would be: I'm capable of handling most technical, "progressive" and/or esoteric aspects of debate, but I really don't think I should have to. It's almost always possible to make even the most novel arguments in a way that is understandable and logically accessible to a reasonably educated non-specialist. And while I probably can understand your terminology or theory, I tend to reward debaters who don't need it.

A few specific things to keep in mind with me:

I vote based on complete arguments. That means claim, warrant, impact, and reason for decision. I probably know what you're trying to say, but can't ethically fill in the gaps for you. So please --if that card really is the killer you think it is-- walk me through why it wins the round for you.

I'm not crazy about speed. I won't say it can never add value. But 80-90% of the time that it's deployed in high school, its principal function is to obscure lazy reasoning or the lack of solid evidence, as opposed to fitting in more useful info. Again, debate is more than tag lines, and I'm not going to pretend that I can understand the particulars of a piece of evidence read at 300 wpm. So if you use speed like that, you assume the risk that I'll miss an essential part of your logical syllogism

On a related note, I'm very unlikely to read your case or cards. If you want to create a competition where people pass papers back and forth to make arguments, that might be an interesting game to play. But the essence of this competition --i.e., debating-- is orally delivering an argument to listeners. There's no reason to have oral delivery unless part of the game is encapsulating information in a way that a listener can process and evaluate. So I will generally decline to read cases or cards unless there is a specific, credible allegation of dishonesty.

I have no objection to theory or kritiks per se, but you're not entitled to tabula rasa judging on these kinds of arguments. That is, if your argument is truly a priori --i.e., it takes precedence over the resolution itself-- then you're no longer operating within the protective shell of imaginary judge fiat, where I can comfortably ignore what I know. Instead, you're asking me to take some stand relating to morality, ethics, fairness, etc., because of some ostensible impact on the real world. I can't ethically take "real world" actions while deliberately ignoring my own relevant knowledge. So full disclosure: if you take the debate outside the resolution, you assume the risk that I'll vote against you based on things that were not said in the round.

Be respectful. I know some tension is inherent in the activity, so I'll give a certain measure of leeway. But I'll happily give you the loss for gratuitous rudeness, mockery, etc.

I am a parent judge.  I am a traditional style judge.  Pretend you are trying to argue this case in front of your non speech/debate teachers. Your case needs to make sense and be logical... no jargon.    

Speed....I can handle a little speed but if you are going so fast that you are tripping over your words... I am not understanding you.  I have NEVER heard or read your case so if you cannot say it fast enough I cannot listen to it.  If you have an important point to make... go slower! Make sure I hear it.

I like voter issues... make sure to provide a concise summary and voter issues in your last speech.  

My thoughts on debate.  It is a fantastic skill to have that will serve you well.  Talker faster than your audience can listen , using words they don't understand, constantly looking down at your computer, and being rude and condescending to your competitor will not typically treat you well in life.  Debate should be teaching and making you use skills that will serve you well long after tournaments are over.  

Our state doesn't do oral critiques or disclose at the end of the debate.  I will be following this same protocol.   

Be prepared, be articulate, be persuasive, be civil.  

I have been privileged to judge a variety of events over the past four years and look forward to participating in the 2022 Warrior Classic. 

On Judging Debate Events ...

With debate events, the side which does the best job of arguing its position and rebutting its opponent will generally emerge as the winner. Persuasive speaking is an important support to mounting an effective argument, but it is not a substitute for well-developed arguments. I expect both sides of a debate to make their points with logic and clarity as this judge, while an informed citizen, should not be assumed to have expertise in the resolution under consideration. Well reasoned arguments (Claim, Warrant, Impact), presented with conviction, will impress me.

I do not have a problem with aggressive questioning during cross-examination, so long as the questions are on point and not personal attacks. In team events, I expect and prefer to see a balanced participation, but specialization is fine and often necessary. The effective use of quality evidence in support of key points is important in making a case.

On Judging Speech Events ...

While the factors that I consider vary with the requirement of the particular event, I do expect the contestants to demonstrate a commitment to their presentation. Skilled contestants have a well designed structure to their work and flow from section to section in a logical fashion that is easy for the judge to follow. I appreciate a pause between opening and the main body of the presentation, as well as at the summation. I value presentations where the contestant has succeeded in matching voice, gestures, and tone to the text. I've yet to be disappointed by a tournament and have come away quite impressed by the talent and intelligence of today's high school students.

I debate IPDA in college and have experience judging high school debate.

I will look for lots of signposting throughout the whole round. Please do not expect me to fill in the gaps or assume that I understand what you are arguing. Tell me!

Clear voters and lots of impacts are appreciated.

I can handle speed just make sure your opponent and I can understand you. Make sure your isn't to cover lack of evidence, debate is more than interesting tag lines. I appreciate slower speeches but if you feel more comfortable at a faster speed, do what's best for you.

I do not appreciate being overly assertive or rude in cross-x, I will probably count off in speaks in bit so please keep it civil.

Good luck and have fun!

Experience:

I am an experienced debater and I have performed in multiple speech individual events. I am currently competing in Varsity IPDA debate at Arkansas Tech University.

Paradigm:

I don't care if debaters spread, however, I feel like content needs to be stated clearly. I vote based on strength of arguments as opposed to quantity. I will vote based on courtesy so please remember that in order to promote civil discourse you must treat your opponents like the human beings that they are. If you cannot present an appropriate attitude in the round, then you will see that reflected on your ballot.

Updated February 2023

Caveat: This is my perception of what I think I do. Those who have had me in the back of the room may have different views.

The TL;DR version (applies to all forms of debate).

1. The resolution is pretty important. Advocate for or against it and you get a lot of leeway on method. Ignore it at your peril.

2. Default policymaker/CBA unless the resolution screams otherwise or you give me a well-reasoned argument for another approach.

3. “Roles of the ballot” or frameworks that are not reasonably accessible (doesn't have to be 50-50, but reasonable) to both sides in the debate run the risk of being summarily thrown out.

4. Share me to the speech doc (maierd@gosaints.org) but I’m only flowing what you intelligibly say in the debate. If I didn’t flow it, you didn’t say it.

5. Fairness and reciprocity are a good starting point for evaluating theory/topicality, etc. Agnostic on tech v. truth debate. These are defaults and can be overcome.

6. Rudeness, rules-lawyering, clipping, falsifying evidence and other forms of chicanery all make me unhappy. Making me unhappy reduces your speaker points. If I’m unhappy enough, you might be catching an L.

The longer version (for all forms of debate)

The Resolution: Full disclosure – I have been a delegate to the NFHS Debate Topic Selection Meeting since 2011 (all years for Mississippi except 2022 when I voted on behalf of NCFL) and was on the Wording Committee from 2018-2020, the last of those years as chair. There’s a lot of work that goes into crafting resolutions and since you’re coming here by choice, it should be respected. Advocate for or against the resolution and I’ll give you a pretty wide degree of latitude on method. If you’re just going to ignore the resolution, the bar is pretty low for your opponent to clear to get the W (though I have seen teams bungle this).

File Sharing and Speed – Yes please, but understand I’m only flowing that which comes out of your mouth that I can understand – I don’t flow as fast in my mid-50s as I did even in my 40s. I only go to the speech doc if a) I lost concentration during the speech through no fault of your own, b) I need to read evidence because there is a dispute about what the evidence says, or c) I want to steal the evidence for a future round. If you bust out ten blips in fifteen seconds, half of them aren’t making the flow. Getting it on my flow is your job and I have no problem saying “you didn’t say that in a way that was flowable”.

Arguments: Arguments grounded in history, political science, and economics are the ones I understand the best – that can cut both ways. So while I understand K’s like Cap, CRT, and Intersectionality, I have a harder time with those that are based on some Continental European whose name ends with four vowels in a row who says that not adopting their method risks all value to life. Your job is to put me in a position to be able to make the other team understand why they lost, even if they disagree with the decision. If you don’t do the work, I’m not doing it for you. Regarding “framework” or “role of the ballot” arguments – if what you’re advocating isn’t at least reasonably accessible to both teams, I reserve the right to ignore it.

Deciding Rounds – I try to decide the round in the least interventionist way possible – I’ll leave it to others to hash out whether I succeed at that. I’m willing to work slightly harder to adjudicate the round than you do to advocate in the round (basically, if neither debater does the work and the round’s a mess, I’m going to look for the first thing I can embrace to get out of the round). If you ask me to read evidence, especially your evidence, you’ve given me a tacit invitation to intervene.

Point Scale – Because I judge on a few different circuits that each have different scales, saying X equals a 28.5 isn’t helpful. I use the scale I’m asked to use to the best of my ability.

Things that will cost you speaker points/the round:

1. Rudeness – Definitely will hurt your speaks. If it’s bad enough, I’ll look for a reason to vote you down or just decide I like to make rude people mad and give you the L just so I can see you get hacked off.

2. Gratuitous profanity – Saying “damn” or “hell” or “the plan will piss off X” in a frantic 1AR is no biggie. Six f-bombs in a forty second span is a different story.

3. Racist/sexist/homophobic language or behavior – If I’m sure about what I saw or heard and it’s bad enough, I’ll act on it unilaterally.

4. Falsifying evidence/clipping cards/deliberate misrepresentation of evidence – Again, if I’m sure about this and that it’s deliberate, I’ll act on my own.

5. Rules-lawyering – Debate has very few rules, so unless it’s written down somewhere, rules-lawyering is likely to only make me mad. An impacted theory objection might be a different story.

Lincoln-Douglas Observations

1. Way too much time on framework debates without applying the framework to the resolution question. I’m not doing this work for you.

2. The event is generally in an identity crisis, with some adhering to the Value Premise/Criterion model and others treating it like 1 on 1 policy, some with really shallow arguments. I’m fine with either, but starting the NC with five off and then collapsing to one in the NR is going to make me give 2AR a lot of leeway (maybe even new argument leeway) against extrapolations not specifically in the NC.

3. Too many NR’s and 2AR’s are focused on not losing and not on winning. Plant your flag somewhere, tell me why you’re winning those arguments and why they’re the key to the round.

Public Forum Specific Observations

1. Why we ever thought paraphrasing was a good idea is absolutely beyond me. In a debate that isn’t a mismatch, I’m generally going to prefer those who read actual evidence over those who say “my 100 page report says X” and then challenge the other team to prove them wrong in less than a handful of minutes of prep time. Make of that what you will.

2. I’ve never seen a Grand Crossfire that actually advanced a debate.

3. Another frustration I have with PF is that issues are rarely discussed to the depth needed to resolve them fully. This is more due to the structure of the round than debaters themselves. To that end, if you have some really wonky argument, it’s on you to develop your argument to where it’s a viable reason to vote. I will lose no sleep over saying to you “You lost because you didn’t do enough to make me understand your argument.”

4. Right now, PF doesn’t seem sure of what it wants to be – some of this is due to the variety of resolutions, but also what seems like the migration of ex-debaters and coaches into the judging pool at the expense of lay judges, which was supposed to be the idea behind PF to begin with.

5. As with LD, too many Final Focuses are focused on not losing instead of articulating a rationale for why a team is winning the debate.

*Most of this was written like 2-3 years ago.* 03/04/2022

I debated for 4 years in pf for Sequoyah High School. Now I debate in IPDA at Mississippi State University.

I’m very technical when it comes to judging rounds and I really could care less about speaking ability given that’s what speaker points are for. If you can effectively get an argument off then I will 100% get it on the flow.

As much as I enjoy it, I don’t flow cross and unless you bring it up in another speech I will not extend or flow arguments.

I can handle speed just make it to where I and your opponents can understand.

I will accept new arguments up to 1st summary as you might need to respond to 2nd rebuttal but if you give a new argument in 2nd summary I will not flow it. However, I think defense is sticky.

What I expect in a round. Constructive: In case I really don’t want anything specific but a pet peeve of mine is to give a CBA as the FW (I won’t dock speaks or vote because of it but I just don’t like it as it’s already implied in the round). I really like a well-labeled case with obvious subpoints.

Rebuttal: For your own good make sure you respond to every single argument because If the other team extends that argument that’s unresponded to I will most likely vote off of that as that’s the easiest way to decide the ballot.

Summary: I believe summary is the most important speech in the round. This is where you collapse on the arguments that you think are the strongest and show me why you win the round. If you do not extend your argument in summary I will not weigh it in round. Don’t bother bringing that argument up in FF at that point as I will just not weigh it.

Final focus: All I really want in this speech is just effectively extend everything said in summary with a lot more weighing. I like weighing words. If you don’t bring up something said in summary I won’t evaluate it

Ethics

As the judge, I really don't want to see you guys fighting during cross. If it gets really dirty ill probably dock speaks a little so keep it civil.

If you have an argument that is a lie (whether intentional or not) and I know about it while the other team doesn't bring it up, I will point it out at the end of the round and not weigh it.

—————————————————————————

I want you to tell me why you won this round so weigh a lot.

I like line-by-line

Make me laugh and ill add speaks

If you have any questions feel free to find me and ask or just talk to me in round. Email: patrickmckenzie13@gmail.com

Looking for solid arguments, I value evidence very much, tie evidence back to your arguments in a sufficient way. Have fun!

I like logical arguments that directly address points made. Those arguments are better understood when they are spoken well instead of spoken fast.

I’ve been here for a minute, and I teach this activity because I believe that communication is a critical skill. Your primary job as a debater is to be CLEAR and PERSUASIVE.

I typically accept things set out in arguments if they are supported by apparently-credible sources, if they make logical sense, and if I can follow the threads of reasoning. I’m politically agnostic in real life, and I believe that debate topics are written to have strong (winnable) arguments on both sides. You’ve gotta tease out what those things are and share them with me through an organized, methodical style that demonstrates your understanding of the topics and their themes and your consideration of your opponents’ positions. Look for the conflict and unpack it politely; that’s why we do what we do.

Should you be ships passing in the night, rounds will go to the speaker(s) with credible content, clear organizational structures, powerful poise, clearer voice, dynamic life, strong visual connections, supportive gestures, and appropriate delivery tempo. If you address the clash, the presentation skills will weigh less and the rounds will go to the speaker(s) with the more convincing analysis of the sides, the arguments, and the places where the concepts at play in the round butt heads.

Is this a paradigm? Idek. But it is what I want from you as a debater.

Fwiw, I’m also probably going to give you handwritten notes.

I teach rhetorical analysis and argumentation; consequently, I carry that awareness with me in my judging. I do my best not to let prior knowledge impact my opinion of arguments.

In judging LD, I concentrate on the values and contentions; I am more excepting of far-reaching contentions as long as you can make the connections. Definitions aren't everything, but I like to know which ones you are using; subtle differences matter. My focus will be on the actual argument, the claims and rebuttals, and the crosses in the debate. I find "arguments" that rely on exhorting the rules of the process to be disingenuous.

In PF, I appreciate seeing a cohesiveness in the team. I focus on the structure of the argument, are adequate supports provided, and is everything rebutted. Again, I do my best not to let prior knowledge impact my decision. Unnecessary speaking over each other and attempting to drown each other out is uncivilized and irritating. It also works against following your argument.

In Policy, I am looking for a logical argument that should pass, and for the negation, I am comfortable with nearly all on-topic and off-topic measures. I do find continuous definition attacks to be pedantic. As for spread, not an issue. I have clear hearing and have taught English to non-native speakers, so enunciation is not really an issue.

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! :)

I debated Public Forum for four years in HS and attempted to compete in Prose for a semester during my Senior year.

Overarching things:

Truth > Tech: All of us can pretty much agree, most of the arguments we read in PF are hypotheticals so I generally evaluate the round based on what's presented regardless of the truthfullness of the argument. Saying that, if you're gonna try to convince me that aliens exist or the Illuminati have my mind in a vat, you'd better have some pretty convincing evidence. Remember, the more realistic your argument, the more likely I am to value it more highly in the round.

Frameworks: I default to a cost/benefit analysis framework. If a team provides a framework for me to evaluate the round under it should be introduced as early as possible and extended throughout all speeches. If there are two frameworks please do the comparative for me and explain why I should pick one over the other.

Comparative Analysis: Please do the comparative for me with different arguments. If both teams are running similar arguments do the comparative and tell my why yours is better. If teams are running different arguments (ie one is an economic impact and one is a democracy impact) I need to know why I'm preferring your argument. Absent comparative analysis, I will have to interpret things on my own and you don't want that.

Extension: Extending only the authors and taglines of cards doesn't suffice for me. You need to extend the substance of the card as well and how they relate to your impact. If you want me evaluate something in FF is should be included in the summary speech. I usually allow first speaking teams to extend defense straight to final focus but in reality you should be mentioning important defense extensions in summary.

Crossfire: I will NOT flow cross. Cross is a way for debaters to clarify arguments with each other, so arguments or ideas presented in cross must be extended throughout the rest of the debate. Don't use cross as an extra speech, use it for setup for later speeches.

Other things:
- When time stops, flowing stops. Speaking over the time limit will not add anything to the flow or factor into my RFD
- Quality over Quantity; avoid spreading if possible
- If I can't understand you, I will stop flowing. It is your job as a debater to present yourself in a clear manner to me, so if you speak to quickly, to a point where I cannot understand you, you will lose speaks and my flow won't contain all the arguments you mention.
- Second rebuttal should respond to turns/disads.
- Please collapse on a few arguments in summary. I prefer quality over quantity and clear extensions.
- Weigh, weigh, weigh (as early as possible in the round)
- Implicate turns and defense
- Please don't miscut (I will drop you)
- Cross fire should be an exchange b/w the two debaters. I don't want long speeches in it.
- Star Wars references are greatly appreciated and will gain some clout with me.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before we start the round/email me at dfroger1@go.olemiss.edu

Good luck and make the most of every round!

Joshua D Rogers Paradigm

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 with strong theoretical argument and links, but just citing them without showing how they apply will not help you out.

I would like to be on your email chain (jdrogers @wmcarey.edu) so I can look at cards that you reference in cross-examination, though I will still judge the flow.

LD Note: Impacting your arguments in a practical way is 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; but must be applicable and the links should be strong.

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

I debate IPDA in college and have experience judging high school debate.

I will look for lots of signposting throughout the whole round. I like to judge on a clean slate, so please do not expect me to fill in the gaps or assume that I understand what you are arguing. I also look for lots of evidence and more to an argument than a good tagline, although those are appreciated!

Clear voters and lots of impacts are appreciated.

I appreciate slower speeches, but, if you feel more comfortable at a faster speed do what is better for you.

I do not appreciate being overly assertive or rude in cross-x, so I will probably count off in speaks a bit if the round is not kept civil.

Good luck and have fun!

Hello! I am Jharick Shields. I am a speech and debate coach at St. Andrew's Episcopal School. I have been coaching for about 20 years and have coached debaters into late elimination rounds in a number of national circuit and NSDA/NCFL tournaments. I have also been fortunate to watch them win a few. Debate allows us the ability to critique the world and to substantively engage with those criticisms. It is a forum in which we communicate those ideas. How you communicate in front of me will directly correlate to the ballot I write. I am truth with tech. I think that you should be able to create a cohesive ballot story while also understanding the fundamentals of LD argumentation. You need to show me that you are reading the sources you are citing. You need to prove that you understand the context behind the arguments you run. You should engage with the arguments of your opponent. Is T engagement with an aff that is nontopical? I would say yes. However, the debater that will earn higher speaks from me will also critically think and engage the affirmative.

Speed is an part of the game of debate. Judge adaptation is also part of the game. I have no problem saying that I missed something on my flow. If the argument is super important, signpost and weigh it. Don't assume that an extension through ink is enough for me to pull the trigger. A lot of times in great debates, amazing weighing tends to win out on cold concessions. Great debaters explain why the argument was conceded. I think that the best debaters figure that out, and close the door on them. I prefer few, well developed arguments to many. However, its your world. I tend to get excited when I am asked to bring out a lot of paper. Just don't assume I got everything you said if you aren't utilizing good communication skills.

I am an old fashioned policy kid, who was fortunate enough to do LD as well. Policy arguments are my heart. I like great plan texts, plan flaws are a thing, CPs with net benefits, strong case debates, Ks(bonus for Ks with policy alts). If thats what you do, I am a really good judge in those rounds. You still have obligations to communicate...

If you are a traditional debater, I still have plenty of love to share. Some of the best rounds I have seen on the national circuit are kids reading a traditional aff. I watch as their opponent gets ready to run 5 off and case. The 1ar gets up, extends their conceded criterion/case evidence, no links the DAs/Ks, perms the CP/Alt and sits down. And maybe the debater doesn't use those terms, but if you make the argument clearly and labeled, I will bridge the educational gap in debate jargon. I am also a very good judge for you.

If you caught me during high school, maybe I could have gotten into tricks/skep stuff. Basically, I can evaluate it, and if both debaters are going down that road together, I won't be as upset going there. I think HEAVY weighing is the only way that I won't gut check for anything else in that debate. Maybe not the best for you, but maybe you just need a somewhat tech judge in a small pool then I am good.

Honestly, I just am really excited to see debates. Run what you want, be respectful, have fun! If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me prior to the round.

For MS Local Touraments:

Everything above applies. There are some things that students do in front of me that don't really help them win the ballot. Here are a few:

1.) Rules Lawyering: I get it, you want to show the judge that you know more about LD or at the very least have a lot of ethos. I must say, through my experience, these cases only end up with that debater losing some ethos. Telling me that something is an NSDA rule when we abide by MSHAA rules is sort of a bad argument. Telling me that a student must have a value, can't run a plan/CP, can't have a criterion, etc is just wrong. In theory, a student can run a case with just 1 contention and nothing else and it is fine. They don't lose the debate, they aren't disqualified, they live to debate another round. Win on the flow.

2.) New arguments: I don't flow these. If the new argument transcends the debate: a student has done something harmful in round, then its fine(but I will most likely intervene, since that is my duty). New evidence that supports arguments already made are fair game. A lot of debaters think that new evidence is the same as a new argument. It isn't.

3.) Mismanaging Drops: Debaters will tell me that an argument was dropped, but it wasn't. They will tell me that they have responded to an argument. They have not. Make sure that you are flowing. After the round, if you show me a quality flow of the debate(and if I have them on me). I will give you a candy/treat or something.

Okay, thanks!!

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.