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

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

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

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

RULE #1 DON'T BE AN JERK. If you have to ask me whether something counts as being a jerk, it probably does. Be assertive. Be confident. But don't be an asshole. Bringing up new arguments too late in the debate counts as being a jerk.

My background:

I competed in LD, Congress, and Extemp in high school (07-11) in Mississippi. Some PF thrown in there. In undergrad, I did IPDA. I have judged at every opportunity since graduating high school. For a short while, I was the coach at the start-up team at Great Hearts Classical School in Irving. I am no longer affiliated with that school.

Housekeeping/Logistics

-Please do not time your opponent’s speeches. Time yourself, by all means. I will be timing both of you, including prep, so I can give good feedback on how you used your time. I will stop flowing if they go over time. Leave that to me. If your timer goes off during your opponent’s speech, I will hold that against YOU.

- I will give you a signal when you have 15 seconds left. Don’t be alarmed; I’m in no rush. I just want to be prepared in case your timer died, you haven’t thought to look at it, etc. I don’t mind giving additional time signals upon request.

- You can include me in the email chain for your case/sources, but YOU are responsible for defending your sources’ credibility and challenging your opponent’s.

General Paradigms (LD, Extemp, Congress, PF)

This is fundamentally an educational event. I’m a teacher. You are students. Show me you LEARNED something that will translate outside of this activity. Such as . . .

Communication – It doesn’t have to be flowery, but it does need to be clear. I value concise communication and knowing what to emphasize.

Critical Thinking – don’t just throw a bunch of cards at me and expect me to be impressed. Anyone can read cards someone else on their team found. Analyze the claims of the sources and of your opponent. Does it all depend on a faulty assumption or a leap of logic? Is this person creating a false dichotomy? Are you really listening to and responding to your opponent’s arguments, or are you putting them in a box and creating a straw man? Show me you know how to think through this topic like a rational human, like a future voter and participant in public discourse.

Research skills – Not all evidence is created equal. In 2021, information literacy is an invaluable skill. Show me you can analyze a source. Anyone with a search engine can find an “expert opinion” that states whatever they want it to. That doesn’t mean research is worthless. It does mean you have to show discernment about what sources are valuable. Is it a peer-reviewed, data-driven, meta-analysis, or some assistant professor saying something inflammatory in a letter to the editor? Real world case studies > hypothetical talk. For ethical/philosophical sources, it doesn’t all have to be empirical. In fact, it shouldn’t. Even then, appeal to authority is still a fallacy. Why do they claim what they claim? Good debaters always ask why.

Social science – have you actually learned a decent bit about this topic, or just some talking points? Can you think about this in a dynamic way (what would happen if . . . ?) Have you really taken the time to understand the international relations, the economics, sociology, psychology, history, or philosophy that informs this discussion? In short, did you learn?

Also, no matter how good of a speaker you are, no matter how thorough your research, no matter how cutting your rebuttals, I’m not voting for a bully. Firm and assertive is fine, but if you compromise the civility of these events, you lose my vote. Period.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigms

I don’t penalize spreading, but you lose the opportunity to get points for eloquence and communication. Spreading to fit in more important analysis, I don’t mind. Spreading to fit in more filler to pad your weak case – you’re making my hand cramp for nothing. Better to make one point well than five poorly. If you can do five well, be my guest. It is your responsibility to make yourself understood. Please signpost and emphasize taglines.

I don’t have one argument that I absolutely penalize. I’m open to anything and enjoy seeing unconventional approaches. However, as I said, I value YOUR education. Making an important point about restorative justice is better for your brain and your future than making a meta-debate point no one outside our activity would understand.

Should you focus on Value-Criterion framework or Contentions and Impacts? Depends on the topic and round. Plea bargaining? You both value justice. Who achieves it? If it is one of the myriad liberty vs. safety issues, it’s ALL about the value & criterion framework. Don’t compare constitutional rights with “According to Office of Management and Budget . . . .” That’s apples to oranges.

Congress Paradigms

I want to see some deeper arguments than your uncle’s ramblings on Facebook, something that is based on evidence, not partisanship.

Every speech should bring up something new about the bill. Either bring up a new point or forward what has been said by rebutting others. If you took a speech from someone else who had an original point just to restate what others have said, you have actively made the chamber a worse place.

Know your economic principles. Talk to me about supply and demand, unintended consequences, social mobility. Don’t just quote figures if you don’t understand them.

I also want to see real foreign policy analysis, not just “things are bad here – someone should do something!” Tell me why this intervention will or won’t work.

The more long-term your arguments, the better.

In terms of parliamentary procedure, I want to see a smooth chamber that prioritizes civility and in-depth discussion. Don’t trample on anyone to get in another speech or question. It will not win you any points in my book. If you want to suspend the rules, etc, follow proper parliamentary procedure, not just handshake agreements.

I like P.O.’s who anticipate the pitfalls they have seen in other chambers and take steps to prevent them. I also respect your right and privilege to address the chamber on the nature of the conversation.

Public Forum Paradigms

PF isn't policy. It was created specifically for lay judges. I can flow spreading well enough to judge, and I can follow technical jargon, but in PF, that won't win you any points. More than any other event, I reward rhetoric and persuasion. Especially in the final speeches, don't feel like you have to go point by point down the flow. Step back, tell me the main issues.

I like to see CX that creates real clash. Don't be afraid of confrontation, but don't turn it into a rebuttal. I want to see in CX where the real clash is.

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

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

411:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

- Being rude or disrespectful to me or anyone else

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

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

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

I am a speech and debate coach as well as a high school history teacher. I have no preferences in round, but I do expect each side to be respectful. Speak and debate your hearts out, but leave it in round. Congratulate each other on a great round. I will follow you as you present your argument. Mess up? Don't stop, keep going.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

Email contact: jrr289@msstate.edu - please add me to any email chains being used in the round

Background: I competed in speech and debate for three years in high school. I primarily participated in public forum debate and international and domestic extemporaneous speaking, but I occasionally competed in LD, congress, and various other limited prep speech events. I attended the NSDA tournament twice in international extemporaneous speaking. I competed at the CFL National tournament three times: once in extemporaneous speaking, once in public forum, and once in congress. I have stayed active in speech and debate by judging a few tournaments a year and helping coach public forum debate teams on the high school level.

Speeches and case organization

I have a fundamental aversion to jargon and unexplained abbreviations or acronyms in debate. Explain and define everything.

The best constructive speeches contain at least some background information on the resolution. Many teams overlook this, perhaps due to time constraints, but this is a critical step. In other words, you need to answer this question up front: how have we arrived at the topic before us?

Organized speeches with clear signposting are an absolute must. Evidence is obviously important, but I will pay special attention to how it is woven throughout your speeches. Are you making it clear why this evidence is important? Why I should trust it? What is its impact? Do you have multiple levels of evidence to support every argument you plan on making?

Crossfire

I will pay attention to everything said during crossfire. While a debate may not be won solely by the crossfire performance, it can quickly be lost. A great debater is one who does not lose their persuasiveness even when they have to think fast on their feet. You should be able to defend all your arguments and evidence without hesitation during crossfire. What I believe to be an extremely effective communication strategy during crossfire that you may want to consider is not forgetting to make eye contact and speak to the judge. Do not limit your focus during crossfire to your opponent or your papers in front of you. Engaging me in crossfire and making me feel included will absolutely earn you some extra speaker points.

Miscellaneous

I will flow each debate carefully, but I do not consider myself a technical judge. You are free to run whatever arguments or strategies you choose; if you can sell it well, I will probably buy it. At the end of the round, my decision is usually for the team who wows me the most. Sometimes that is the team who I think wins the most number of arguments. Sometimes that is the team who wins the strongest arguments. Sometimes it is the team that had the best delivery and persuasiveness.

Please feel free to contact me via email if you have any questions.

I am an attorney and my current occupation is as a Hearing Officer for the Mississippi Ethics Commission. AKA, I am an administrative judge and will evaluate your debates in a similar manner as a case pending in front of me. That is, I will make my decision based on the logic of the arguments and evidence presented. You should consider me to be a lay judge in a traditional circuit.

DO NOT SPREAD. (This includes policy.) I CANNOT handle speed. if I don't understand you, you haven't given me anything to consider. Time constraints are in place to force you to create your best and most persuasive argument. Accordingly, I give the most weight to clear explanations and logical arguments supported by credible evidence. Do not simply read your "cards." If you use jargon, give definitions. I will also evaluate the credibility of your arguments.

I expect relevance - Your arguments need to DIRECTLY address the resolution.

I also expect clash - I'm looking for you to address what is presented in each other's cases.

Finally, be polite and respectful as you debate. Your job is to attack your opponent’s ideas, not to attack your opponent on a personal level.

Good luck!