Public Forum paradigm

I now coach speech, but I have also coached Congress and have judged PF and LD for the past 15 years in Ohio, Louisiana, and the national circuit. I never competed, but you know what they say about those who can’t (or don't).

I like to hear a well organized case—I value clarity and consistency. I prefer depth of analysis of one or two contentions rather than superficial treatment of a long list. Supporting evidence is important, but not as important as logical argumentation. Be sure that evidence actually supports or refutes and is not just thrown in to provide a source. I tend to vote on the arguments that involve impact and scope.

Clash is essential—nothing more deadly than listening to dueling evidence with no actual interaction. Do as much damage as you can to your opponent’s case and defend you own—sounds really basic, but that’s what I like to hear.

Crossfire is a time to ask questions—please do not use it to advance or restate your case (unless, of course, it pertains to a question you’ve been asked). I like to see teamwork in grand cross—please do not monopolize and let your partner get a word in edgewise.

I enjoy a nice extemporaneous delivery that demonstrates some real (or feigned) enthusiasm for your argument. Please do not spread—it is not impressive, and if I can’t follow you, the quality of your argument suffers.

And finally I value civility, courtesy, and respect—please don’t disappoint.

Lincoln Douglas paradigm

Similar to my PF standards, I am pretty traditional. I like a case that is well organized, clear, and consistent. Supporting evidence and depth of analysis are important, but logical arguments are essential. I really enjoy a good framework debate, and I appreciate hearing voting issues--tell me why I should vote for you. Why are your impacts more important?

I like an extemporaneous and conversational delivery. I am okay with some speed, but no spreading, please--if I can't follow you, I can't vote for you.

Civility, courtesy, and respect--always important.

Congress paradigm

Congress rankings are based on content (structure, evidence, clarity, analysis, clash) and delivery (articulation, fluency, vocal and physical expression, confidence/poise). Most importantly who advanced the debate and contributed the most through the quality (not necessarily the quantity) of his/her/their speeches and questions?

Civility, courtesy, and respect apply here as well.

Contact info: ebourgeo@nd.edu

*This is my college email; don't send me anything weird.*

Ben Franklin '20; New Orleans, Louisiana

University of Notre Dame '24; Sociology

Conflicts: Benjamin Franklin High School, St. Mary's Dominican High School

I was an LD, Congress, and IE competitor for two years at Ben Franklin and received a bid each year to NCFL Grand Nationals. I am a current NFA-LD and NPDA parli debater at Notre Dame.

My personal idea of LD is its uniqueness as a value debate. Yes, impacts are important, but so is the philosophy and reasoning behind your case. If your evidence doesn't support your framework clearly, you will not win. For Congress, I enjoy a little camaraderie. Congress is a more open space for debate, make it interesting. I have not previously done or judged PF or policy; general rule is to be clear, fair, and always bring your points back to your main plan/arg.

Traditional cases are best with me as my local circuit was trad, and most of my team debated primarily trad cases. Ks are fine, CPs are fine, just link back into your framework and everything will be solid. I don't like T very much; I will listen to it if the opponent is clearly being abusive. I also enjoy a good philo-based, theoretical arg if you can do it well. No tricks, no personal insults. I am familiar with some policy tactics as I use them more often in NFA; however, I am still not overwhelmingly experienced with policy debate, so don't expect me to know it all.

CX is important for me; I like good clash. No spreading preferably, especially not in local LD (in local policy, fine since it's standard); if you must, don't exceed ~320 wpm and allow me time to hear your voice. Make sure you can at least properly separate your words; if you can't, it is highly unlikely that I can understand you (especially online). Signpost before speaking and when switching topics in your speeches.

Do not attempt to overwhelm your opponent as a winning strategy, especially if they are clearly more inexperienced than you. Blocks of evidence don't matter if they cannot properly link, and especially if they are presented in a way that makes actual debating near impossible.

Absolutely no racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. Queer Ks/T is okay as long as it isn't promoting oppression of queer people. I absolutely do not tolerate dog-piling on debaters, especially male debaters dog-piling on female debaters, and I will not listen to it.

+1 speaker points if you can work the word “swag” anywhere in your speaking time.

I'll give half points.

25/26 - Lowest I'll give. Either a mess of a case (26) or racism/sexism/etc (25).

27/28 - Mediocre speaking with a decent case. Room for improvement but doing alright, especially if you're new.

28/29 - Good round, good speaker, good case. You have clarity, good clash, and a well-thought out case.

30 - Excellent round with excellent speaking/case, and I learned something.

I have a B.F.A in Acting from University of Houston. I also studied Montessori education at Houston Montessori Center and am a teaching member of the American Montessori Society. I worked in Montessori education for 25 years. I also provide private coaching in acting and public speaking for students.

I have judged speech and forensics for almost 6 years. What is most important to me is that you have a positive, enriching educational experience through your participation in speech and debate.

In regards to debate, be respectful to one another. If your opponent is overly aggressive and rude, do not respond with attitude. This will cost both of you speaker points. I also think it is important to use all your time in cx if you do not it shows me you are not prepared. I am fine with spreading but remember to articulate.I consider myself to be a policy maker and tab. judge. Have fun and good luck.

Please add me to the email chain: chloegbrown31@gmail.com :-)

**Feel free to ask more specific questions before rounds, but know that your style/ research is more important than my feelings about specific args/ strategies.**

CX:

I did policy all through high school, mostly critical/ soft-left stuff. I l still like K stuff, not necessarily more than anything else though. Honestly, I don't tend to vote for T but will if the voting issues are made very clear and important.

Southside is my first tournament judging the 2023-24 topic, if there are specific acronyms, please clarify them. Don't expect me to have super intimate knowledge of NATA/ AI- related legislation. I keep up with the news, but I am an English major.

I pay close attention to role-of-the-ballot and role-of-the-judge args but want to knowwhythose roles are valid/ important/ good.

If you are going to run a K, please demonstrate a good understanding of your methodologies, authors, and foundational philosophies. Running something critical just for the sake of it is not going to win you any points.

Generally, I want to know why things matter and believe in truth over tech. I am not going to catch every minute technical concession. By the end of the round, wrap things up nicely and tell me exactly what matters the most (and why).

L/D

I never competed in LD but enjoy judging it and have quite a lot.

Although I don't have super specific preferences, please do flesh out any framing-- do not assume that just because yousay the value criterion is "____" that means I assume it's true. Tell me why!Let me know what matters in/ out of the round.

I pay close attention to the line-by-line and love to see direct clash.

Pronouns: She/her

I have NO TIME FOR HATE. Any comments that are offensive, racist, bigoted, transphobic, misogynistic, etc will result in an automatic drop. This includes: speaking down to opponents, using improper pronouns/misgendering, using offensive terminology, etc. Speech and debate is about respectfully allowing our arguments to shine through, not attacking one another; therefore, I will not tolerate it.

LD:

I am an old-fashioned LD judge. No spreading. If I cannot hear an argument, I do not judge that argument. It is not my job as the judge to figure out your arguments; it is YOUR job as the debater to tell me what they are.

I want to see framework debate. LD is NOT Policy! 99% of the time I'm not interested in solvency. I also usually drop counterplans, because that's subverting the intention of LD.

Also, personal pet-peeve: poorly cut cards. Cards should not be cut stringing disparate words together to change the intention of the writer of the card. If you can't pull a clean quote out of it, choose a new card.

I am a firm believer in the idea that an LD round ought to be understandable by anyone off the street.

Congress:

I reward active speakers who participate and advance debate. Rehashing in a late-cycle or giving speeches just to give a speech and not to advance debate will NOT be rewarded. I do notice who is just giving speeches and who is giving speeches, proposing motions, asking questions, etc.

burdettnolan@gmail.com

Experience

I debated on the TFA and TOC circuits for 4 years in high school (2012-2016) and have been coaching and judging on/off for the last few years. I'm comfortable with speed and familiar with most arguments around the circuit. If there's anything else you need to know, just ask!

Paradigm

I will generally vote on any argument that is warranted, extended, explained with reference to the ballot, and does not create an unsafe space for students or participants involved. I encourage creativity with arguments and don't have strong feelings toward any specific style or type of position. I will not evaluate arguments that don't have warrants, even if they are conceded. Bad warrants are OK - they just have to be impacted to a ballot story.

I do not assume any particular role of the ballot or theory of debate - I will look at debate, education, and arguments in whatever way you tell me to. I do generally assume that my ballot must be connected to some decision-making paradigm and that my decision about the winner must stem from this paradigm, regardless of what that may be. I am open to diverse arguments that apply to debate in creative ways and will evaluate offense accordingly.

Evidence/Flowing

I tend to flow constructives off of speech docs and rebuttals by ear, even when there is a doc sent out. That means if you add an analytic in your constructive while in the middle of a speech doc, it is highly likely that I will miss it and not vote for it. Clarity, sign-posting, and spacing are really important to me because they help me flow. Flowing speeches well is hard. If your speeches are easier to flow, you will have an advantage.

I will only look at evidence if 1) It is explicitly called for in round 2) A warrant/explanation is mentioned that I do not have in speech 3) If I feel it is possible that evidence is being misrepresented. I generally think that debaters should be explaining the warrants in their evidence during speeches - but at the very least, tell me how good and warranted your evidence is in the speech so I can verify the claims you are making.

Speaker Points

I do not have an objective scale for awarding speaker points. I try to award them based on how well I feel a debater has performed relative to their own average performance (average being 28). But, if I think you deserve to break at the tournament you're at, I'll usually start with a 29. I acknowledge that this is not a perfect system but it is how I award speaks. If you are a stronger, more experienced debater hitting someone significantly less experienced: the way to get high speaks from me is to win the round effectively and efficiently with a clear ballot story, then continue to use the rest of your speech time to have an engaging debate with your opponent's position. The more educational, the better. I'm begrudgingly receptive to strategically sidestepping clash in most situations, but not this one - respond to their position, please!

Otherwise, I generally award speaker points based on strategy, execution, efficiency, creativity, performance, clarity, and personality.

Feedback

I give oral disclosures and feedback unless explicitly instructed not to. I try to spend a few minutes going through each speech offering feedback and constructive criticism. If you want to test out a new position, I'm a good person to innovate in front of - I'll try my best to give a few tips and thoughtfully engage with what you've written or put together.

Conclusion

Once again, if you have any questions or are confused by what's written above, just ask. I'm very open to questions. Otherwise, try to learn something, get along, and have some fun!

I debated policy for 2 and a half years at BRMHS. I haven't judged for this year yet (outside of practice rounds). Add me to the email chain: andrewcallender2460@gmail.com

TL: DR-I am more familiar with kritikal arguments than policy ones, but I'll vote for anything as long as it is done well. In your last rebuttal impact out your arguments, write the ballot for me, and say why my vote for you should matter. tech> truth.

Spreading- Clarity>>> Speed. I should be able to understand most speeds but I'll say clear as many times as I need to.

Theory- I have a pretty high threshold for theory arguments and I hate when teams just speed through blippy theory args just for time skew. Lots of times I default to reasonability so don't run condo because of one CP.

FW- Not my favorite argument, but if you execute well I'll vote for it.

DA/CP- Impact Calc will be the thing to win me over the most in this debate. I prefer the 2NR to have a CP with the DA you're going for but there doesn't need to be one. I appreciate short overviews for the DA before going into the line by line. Case turns are always a good strat on the DA.

K- Prolly the form of the debate I'm most used to. I have a pretty good understanding kritikal literature but don't just throw around buzz words the entire time. Please give an Overview in the block especially if it's an uncommon K. I view every link as an individual DA to the plan so flesh them out. The more specific the link the better. You can kick the alt in the 2NR but I'd rather you not.

28 speaker points are the base I start at unless you make any openly racist, ableist, sexist, transphobic, or homophobic statements.

Here are some of my preferences for the following events! If you have any other questions, be sure to ask before the round begins.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate:

I will base my decision based off the framework provided. If no framework is provided, I will look at the biggest impacts in the round. If you want me to take an impact into consideration when casting a ballot, make sure you extend it across the flow! In addition, EXPLAIN why your impact matters. Please don't allow the round to become a definition debate. Of course, there will be some exceptions to that rule, but generally, agree on a definition and carry on with the debate. Don't drop your impacts halfway through and bring them up in the final speech. I'm not particularly fond of K's, but if you are running one, please be sure to stay in topic. Make sure you defend your case but don't forget to attack your opponent's case. As per evidence, it MUST come from reliable sources, otherwise, they will not be considered. Speaker points will be heavily influenced by your ability to both argue your points and your ability to communicate them to your opponent and me in an efficient way.

Public Forum Debate:

If you are winning on the flow, then you are winning the round. Extend your arguments and impacts, don't expect me to do so. Be sure to explain why your impacts matter! If you have a framework, I will use that to pick the winner of the round, as long as both teams agree on the framework. Your rebuttals should consist of both defense AND offense. If you drop your opponent's arguments, I will consider them as conceded on your side. Do not make arguments during CX, and do not bring up new evidence/arguments in the final focus - these will NOT be considered. All you will gain from it is lower speaker points for being abusive. Do some impact-weighing in the final focus, and make it clear that you are winning! Please be concise and clear. If I can't understand you, I can't vote for you. Make sure your evidence comes from a reliable source: the more recent the evidence, the better. As per speaker points, they will be based on your performance in all your speeches, AND your performance during CX.

GENERAL RULES

- BE RESPECTFUL. After all, it is simply a debate round. Do not let your emotions get the best of you, stay professional.

- DO NOT SPREAD.

- Do NOT go over the time limit. I understand if you're trying to finish up your sentence, but anything more than that is unfair to your opponent.

And lastly, have fun and good luck!

Introduction:

Hey y'all,

I am now in my seventh year of coaching Public Forum. Although I am more experienced than a lay judge, I still like a good narrative explanation of the round with less focus on technicality and more focus on clash.

Pronouns: He / Him / His

Speaking:

Clarity and Speed are my two biggest concerns. Speak clearly and, for all that is good in this world, do not spread (I will try to make exceptions for LD and Policy judging, but if I stop taking notes and just start staring at you, you should probably slow down).

Evidence:

In the event of an argument concerning the validity of a piece of evidence, I will require the evidence and any contrary evidence if available. Any evidence which does not have an accessible citation will be thrown out. Any evidence which bears marks of intentional tampering or distortion will be grounds for an immediate loss for the offending party.

Argument:

Basic style - Claim, Warrant, Impact. Make sure to evaluate impacts on both sides of the debate. A comparative debate with clash between arguments makes it easy for me to determine who won the round. For Policy and LD, I will not judge Kritiks* (Ks), so please do not run them in front of me. My personal belief (and you may disagree with this) is that Ks defeat the educational purpose of debate by eliding the resolution. For example, if I am expecting to learn about the merits and drawbacks of deep sea exploration, I will be disappointed if the focus is on whether capitalism is evil. I apologize for being a debate norms Luddite, but consider this fair warning.

*NOTE: I will make exceptions for teams that only have Kritiks as cases, but they must be incredibly compelling.

Etiquette:

Please don't be rude (i.e. snarkiness, frequent interruption, and condescension). Repeated rudeness, despite quality of speeches, will result in lower speaker points. Do not attempt to race-bait, gender-bait, or villainize your opponents. It is not your opponents' faults that they may have to argue justifiable but morally-bankrupt positions (for example, political realism and state security over humanitarianism). Unless your opponent is arguing something intrinsically heinous like eco-fascism or colonialism, you will hemorrhage speaker points for engaging in this behavior.

Addendum:

If you have any questions not clarified in the paradigm, please ask before the round. I will be more than happy to answer any questions, comments, or concerns.

Caddo Magnet High School (c/o 2016)
Trinity University (c/o 2020)

Add me to the ev chain: ethanc907@gmail.com

General

- Do what you do best
- I was a 2N almost all of high school and went for everything
- I like techy debates with lots of comparison, but don't forget to frame the round
- I have a terrible poker face, you'll know if i don't understand something
- I think debate is a game
- Please don't take yourselves too seriously; the end-all be-all of your existence is not determined by a high school debate round


Stuff you should do
- Make arguments (which is a claim, warrant, and impact)
- Explain said arguments
- Clash with your opponents' arguments
- Frame the round
- Disclose your aff (unless it has never been broken) and past 2NRs

Stuff you shouldn't do
- Start every argument with "judge..". My name is Ethan
- Tell me to call for a card 40,000 times without extending a warrant
- Be super salty during all of cross-ex
- Be racist/sexist/generally offensive
- Steal Prep. I probably wont say anything but I'll dock your speaks
- Cheat (clip/lie about arguments made/etc.)

Some specific stuff

Case:
- Good case debating = higher speaks
- Find logical holes in the aff (which always exist).
- Impact turns are p cool
- If you're aff against a K, please don't forget you have an aff

Topicality:
- Disclaimer: I was never a high level T debater. Obviously I will still vote for it
- That being said, I really enjoy a well executed T debate


Framework:
- Explain what debate looks like under your interpretation
- Framework is sometimes your best option, recognize when that is

Disadvantages:
- Impact analysis and turns-case arguments win these debates
- Specific DAs are cool

Counterplans:
- Read whateve
- I loved cheating counterplans as a 2N, but if it's abusive, you obviously should be able to defend it/have a decent solvency advocate
- I really enjoy smart, well researched PICs that punish lazy/ridiculously broad affs.
- Agent counterplans are legitish

Kritiks:
- Specific Ks are usually better
- Contextualize your links to the aff
- Explain your tricky K tricks
- The negative should win some version of framework or a large portion of the case debate
- Long overviews as a substitute for line-by-line make me sad

K Affs:
Feel free to run them. I think they should have at least some connection to the topic, although I'm not really sure what defines "some connection."

General Theory Stuff:
- Prove the in-round abuse or else it's just a reason to reject the argument.
- Condo is probably good in the abstract but I become skeptical if your worlds are super contradictory
- Please slow down and signpost so i can flow instead of just spreading through your 20+ year old theory blocks

TLDR: I’m fine with any argument you want to throw at me. I prefer a good policy debate for novice, but I would love to hear a critical debate if it is a good one.

History: I debate for Caddo Magnet High, and I am a junior. I’ve been debating for 5 years in policy. I’ve run everything from politics and case to OOO and Anti-Blackness. Please don’t hold back a strategy because you think I won’t buy it.

T: I default to competing interpretations. If you do go for this, you need to have standards that are CLEARLY STATED. It’s not a question of if they are actually topical or not, but rather a question of how much you win that it is not topical. Topicality, for me at least, is evaluated as a disadvantage that if you win a significant risk of, you win the debate.

Framework: (See T) Also if the aff wins a significant risk of a critique to your framework, then they win. You have to do impact calculus with this because you go against arguments that deal with discourse rather than fiated action.

CP’s: I love really sketchy counterplans that have good solvency but sketchy action. Word PICs are great, Agent PICs are great. Perm do the counterplan is terrible. ALWAYS MAKE SURE YOU HAVE A NET BENEFIT.

DA’s: All disadvantages are great. Politics is the best argument for novices—it’s simple, easy to understand, and easy to vote on. Terrorism is one of my favorite arguments. In the 2NR I need a story of the DA.

K’s: One of the most strategic arguments in debate. Make a good case solvency claim in the 2NR so that you can mitigate a good chance of impact calculus. Floating PIKs are totally legitimate, but a dropped theory argument will cost you the round. This is the literature base that I’m most familiar with, but that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t explain it as best you can.

K Affirmatives: Run them if you can. I love them when you have a plan text. If you have an advocacy statement, please ground it in some type of real and concrete action, but if it’s not concrete, explain why it’s not and why that’s good.

Ethicality arguments: Usually reasons to end the round—card clipping and internet use. Reasons I will refuse to vote for you—racism good and patriarchy good type arguments. You’ll get low speaker points—yelling at your partner or talking to people outside the room. 

Put me in email chains or feel free to email me questions: JamieSuzDavenport@Gmail.com

I probably need to do an overhaul of my paradigm; it will likely not happen until I'm out of grad school. Seriously just AMA if it will help you going into the round.

Experience:

MPA-MSES @ IU Dec ’23, hoo hoo hoo Hoosiers. GA since '21. Please note this is an environmental science degree. I have a very low tolerance for climate denial or global warming good and would recommend not going for those args.

BA: IR, Fr, Arabic @ Samford, May ’20, ruff ‘em, CX and novice coaching

HS: LD in GA, ‘16

Misc

A note: I won't read cards unless instructed or seeking clarity (and if this is the case, I will be grumpy). All comments will be typed in the ballot and am open to questions immediately following the round and via email afterward. I do my best not to intervene or let personal biases cloud my judgment. I do have a deep appreciation for friendly competition and will generally be happier while giving out speaks or making decisions if I think the people in the round embodied that spirit. Conversely, am not afraid to have a come-to-Jesus meeting for unnecessary antagonism.

For eTournaments: I'll need a little more time than normal to adjust to your style of speaking/spreading because online anything gets tricky. Try to keep that in mind for your speeches so my ears can adjust. I'll default to having my camera on.

Zoom debate: PLEASE double-check your mic settings so that background noise suppression is not on. Zoom decides that spreading is background noise and it messes with the audio.

Overall:

Do what you want. I'm pretty go-with-the-flow and will try to adapt to what the round is versus making you adapt to me. The main thing to consider with me is my personal debate experience and potential knowledge gaps because of it. I'm not a great judge for high theory because I simply don't get it and it takes more explaining for me to understand and take it seriously (@ Baudrillard, semio-cap, etc.). There's some k lit that I'm not fully versed in but I try to keep current on major issues. Otherwise go nuts but make good choices.

2AR/NR: I more and more find myself telling debaters to tell me a story so I think I should put it in here. Whether you're going for a K, FW, DAs, extinction - whatever - start the speech telling me what your scenario is and why it's preferable to the other team. This is especially true if going for a perm or in a KvK debate, having a nuanced explanation clearly at the top of the speech frames the rest of the lbl and interactions you go for.

This was formerly organized by each event that I judge but that was getting unmanageable and ugly. If you have specific questions about anything event-specific or otherwise, just email or ask before the round starts.

Theory

Topicality/FW - I'll default that fairness is k2 education – if you want a different standard to be my primary metric, just tell me to do the thing. Might need more explanation of how I can apply the standard but that’s mostly for the atypical ones. Err on the side of over-explaining everything. Please please please explain your (counter)interp and what standards I should apply to favor yours - if there are a bunch of standards, which one do I evaluate first? Why? To reiterate: err on the side of over-explaining everything.

Fiat - I'll imagine it's real for policy v policy debates but more than willing to be sus of it, just tell me why.

Condo – dispo is an archaic interp and I think you can get better offense from other brightlines (2, what they did minus 1, etc.). I’ll vote on dispo but it’ll take more for you to win it than you need to do. Generally, think condo gets to its extremes when in the 3-4+ area, but new affs could change that yadda yadda, do what you want.

Other theory – whatever, just make the interp/counter-interp clear and tell me what to do with it.

RVI’s – please strike me or pref me real real low if this is your thing. I just don’t like it. This is one of if not the only hard-line I draw on content. They’re a time suck to play weird chess instead of engaging in the substance of the debate. Also, the majority of the time, horribly explained/extended.

Content

No huge preferences here

Cross-ex - I don’t flow cx unless something spicy grabs my attention and it’s usually obvious when that happens based on my reaction. Bring it up in a speech to remind me. Open cross, flex prep, is fine – I for real check out for flex prep.

Card clipping – you’ll lose. Might report it to tab/your coach if I’m feeling zesty that day.

Silliness

Love a good joke, wordplay, or reference. I currently am trying to incorporate “slay”, “yeehaw”, “gaslight gatekeep girlboss” and more into my regular debate vernacular. Feel free to also use these and I’ll at least laugh, maybe boost speaks, who knows – depends on how much of a silly goofy mood I’m in.

Benjamin Franklin High School

Tulane University

Current Conflicts: Durham Academy

Email: SeanFaheyLD@gmail.com (please put me on email chains and feel free to email me questions)

September 2022 Update (Read if you're a traditional debater): How exciting to be back in person! Some notes on lay debate in front of me. I am open-minded in terms of how you approach these debates as long as it does not come at an unfair expense to your opponent (ex: spreading against competitors who do not want to). Please be respectful of each other. I think about traditional LD fairly linearly - win offense underneath whatever framework is winning in the round. Whether that means conceding your opponents framework and going for turns or having an elaborate framework debate, all that matters to me is whether you outweigh under the winning framework. Cases without a criterion are very hard to evaluate unless you contextualize your offense to your opponents standard. I don't see much value in the value debate (no pun intended) other than using the value as an additional reason to prefer a certain criterion. I will listen to lay theory arguments, such as 'no counterplans', but, if you want to win on this argument, you need to articulate the theoretical argument as a voting issue and why (fairness/education/etc.). I appreciate thoroughly extended impacts and clear, decisive weighing. Also - with peace and love - please don't try to shake my hand, we just got out of a big pandemic. Have fun and debate your best!

I debated for 4 years at Benjamin Franklin High School in New Orleans, LA. I competed at the TOC twice and got to finals of the CFL National Tournament my senior year. I've taught at the Victory Briefs Institute and The Debate Intensive.

I read all styles of arguments at some point in time, but mostly read critical theory. That said, I’m open to all styles of argumentation and speed (I will state clear as needed). I like in-depth debates that emphasize critical and comparative handling of evidence/nuanced arguments. Simply reading a card is not really a full argument to me; rebuttals need to have a clear, full extension of arguments presented in your evidence. I don't have much lenience in evaluating extensions that are just the tagline and author. This should also flag that I’m not a huge fan of blippy styles of argumentation and, while debate is a competitive activity, I’d rather evaluate a more scholastic engagement of ideas.

I decide based on the flow, but everyone says that and it kinda means nothing. That said, I view myself as an educator and, as such, I don’t allow hateful/violent discourse and I will reflect that with my ballot/RFD.

I usually flow CX. I like well-used CX time.

Please slow down for plan texts, CP texts, theory interpretations, perm texts, or anything that has precise value in its wording.

Little blurb on disclosure+debating politely:

I think open source disclosure is a very good thing and I regard most attempts to avoid this norm as unpersuasive. That said, I have voted against disclosure theory many times on impact turns to fairness or transparency, given those arguments are won on the flow, of course. I think reading disclosure theory against debaters clearly out of the national circuit loop is pretty unkind and often voids engagement, so please don’t. That said, I think reading disclosure theory against novices/early varsity members of large programs on the wiki is acceptable because their coaches should tell them to do so/do so for them (especially if the rest of the team discloses) and sometimes these debates are the only way for people to learn.

In the same vein as my policy on disclosure theory, please do not spread out debaters who clearly can not spread. You can still win this way because I won't intervene, but I will dock your speaks because I think it's rude. Please be considerate and inclusive.

Little blurb on theoretical presumptions:

In the past I have said what I default to in terms of paradigms for theory and framework, but I’ve come to view this norm as an incentive for lazy debating. I think you should have to justify everything necessary for you to win.

Things ppl actually care about:

• 50-50 on Framework v Non-T affs and not necessarily because of my personal opinions on the matter.
• Fairness and education are voters in no particular order; I think strength of link is especially relevant in the determination of which of these matters more in a given round.
• That said, I think epistemic modesty, as it is generally used, is pretty nonsensical. Don’t really understand weighing a deontic violation against a risk of an impact.
• I think K affs should do something or place some theoretical weight in the act of affirmation. Pessimism based affs with no clear solvency mechanism (or definition of what solvency is in the eyes of the affirmative position) generally seem to be negative presumption arguments in my mind. Feel free to change my mind on this point. I’ve seen exceptions to this.
• Please explain your permutations by illustrating a clear picture of the world it supposes.
• Weigh impacts and strength of internal links. PLEASE. Don’t presume that I think extinction is worse than genocide, war, etc. and give me some way to do risk analysis.
• Asinine theory follows the pornography rule for me, you know it when you see - my threshold on answering these args is substantively very low.
• Have fun, take it easy, and make some jokes or something.

Hi, welcome to my paradigms. I did LD debate for 2.5 years. I was a Util Plan / CP DA debater. I love a really nuanced discussion where lots of different elements play with eachother. I have familiarity with some Marx, Anti-B, and some SetCol. I am a computer science major so I kinda keep up with computers and technology. If you disagree with any of these paradigms you can ask, but I would do that after the round. Email: pfranz1@lsu.edu

General Debate:

You can call me Judge, I really dont give speakers for being polite. It just leads to people being smarmy. Just be as polite as you would want to be treated and its all good.

Please flash me the case and any relevant cards. I like to read them to make sure there is no blatant lying, and it lets me check my flow. Please send me an email.

It's okay to be spicy if you are both of similar skills and age. I don't think you're cool if you're mean to your opponents, but I understand that if they are not cooperating in CX you have to get direct.

I would normally want to give an RFD if it's possible. If it would upset you to know then you can just leave. Please don't act toxic, if I missed something then I'm honestly sorry, but in real life, if your best arguments are missable, then you won't be able to persuade effectively.

If you are from a school with an active coach and support staff you should probably be disclosing. I don't want to enforce disclosure as it's often used to just force small school debaters to hand cases over to coaches who prep them out. But from larger schools disclosure is critical for these small schools. If you are from a small school and don't want to disclose, I would recommend meeting your opponent before the round and showing them the case on your computer so they have some idea of what to expect without being able to get their coaches involved.

Signposting is free. Just be brief. And stick to it and internally let me know where you are going.

Power tagging and misrepresenting evidence will lose you the round. Debate can be fast and fun because we have some level of trust about the legitimacy of evidence. If you violate that trust you are actively hurting the larger debate ecosystem. That being said, I am talking about egregious examples. Like forming a different sentence from pronouns sprinkled in the paper and leading to a different statistic. If you want to protest a piece of evidence bring it up in your speech and I will evaluate it at the end of the round if I agree with you.

Defend the whole resolution. I really detest using poetic metaphors to explode ground, and specing in LD or PF is lame in my opinion. Read your plan but just defend the whole resolution.

Counter Plans that highlight a missed opportunity cost are cool. I don't like specing some other method or an "ask the pope" cp. Just tell me something that you can do in the neg that the aff would stop you from getting to do.

No Ks unless they can and are read as a disad to the plan. If it doesn't relate to learning to make policy, to me, its a waste of the value of debate. That being said, a K can really slap a plan. If they want more guns in the middle east a US Bad K with tangible impact would be cool with me. If you have other judges who respond to Ks go for it and Ill try my best to hear you out. If it's just me though, please don't read a K.

Speed is okay. I listen to youtube on double speed, so if you are clear I can probably get you. However, please don't overdo it with double hitching

Theory is to check abuse to have better rounds, if your theory reading makes the round worse than the infraction did you are going to lose on the standards.

RVI's exist. If your version of debate is better, then your opponent should lose for wasting a good round. This means you need to win sufficient offense to prove that it was so clear that you were better that your opponent should've never read Theory. If you read just defense or you both have roughly equal amounts of offense then its just a wash and I move to substance.

Debate is a game to develop critical thinking skills. Debate is special in that it allows students to be policymakers. This type of learning is unique and important to social movements. Because of this, I do not vote for performative or pre-fiat impacts. If you believe that performance is the best way to create knowledge and make change I recommend the multitude of other venues catering to that type of learning.

Public Forum

Extend things from your teammate. Just explain a little and explain why it should be extended. This can be as simple as "it was dropped"

Explicitly weigh things. I love hearing "extend contention 2 against their contention 1" be very clear

Defend the resolution clearly, if you are the aff and squirmy on what you mean its a moving target for the neg which is unfair

Lincoln Douglas

Defend the whole resolution. If you have some banger plan, then its advantage areas should be so good as to make up for the weak parts the whole resolution also covers. If it's some really small thing that is better and you have to drop the other parts to make the offense coming out of the plan sufficient to win, then you are just limiting the ground to something only you can win or a niche area no one has prepped for. Either way, I don't like it so please don't do it.

Please don't tell me winning the framework wins you the round. To win the debate round tell how I should evaluate the resolution, then tell me why when I evaluate the resolution with that lense I vote for you. It also really smart to weigh under both frameworks.

Philosophy is cool, but it's not what I enjoy? If you love philosophy then go for it and it can win.

You can read a K like argument if it has an impact in the post-fiat world. I will not vote for a pre-fiat impact.

Fiat is absolute. It is better for our imaginations to believe we could do something. After imagining it we can work towards it.

You can fiat an action not a result. For example, you can Fiat the US passes a bill and it has funding, but you cannot fiat that it works.

Policy / CX

I'm sorry you got me as your judge if you wanted to do the quirky stuff that CX debaters love doing. Unfortunately, I really don't enjoy that type of stuff. I also think that debate is unique for policymaking education and thus should be primarily that.

Do traditional policy. Plan Advantages. Counter Plan Disadvantages

Read Ks as having post-fiat impacts. You can read USA imperialism bad, then have the impact of US Imperialism as an impact.

Extend things

I have competed, coached, and judged high school debate over the last 30 years. I consider myself knowledgeable about assorted frameworks in the Debate world. I am now a parent of a debater. I consider myself a blank slate.

I believe it’s the responsibility of the debaters to guide my decision by their analysis and evidence. If your opponent drops an argument, it’s your responsibility to point it out and provide analysis as to why it matters. I really appreciate when in the final speeches of a debate, the debaters provide the concrete reasons to vote for their side. If neither debater provides these details, I will adopt a secondary framework of common sense to determine the winner.

Clarity in speaking whether conversational or spreading is important.

Caddo Magnet 2016, currently at Trinity University

pls have clash, line by line, and idk arguments with warrants and claims and impacts

don't say sexist/racist/ or otherwise generally offensive things

topicality: explain so it is not a wash, its ok, but like, please tell me why its /actually important

framework: impacts! explain impacts!

CP: not a fan of delay cp, but will still vote on it if you convince me. PICS are great if smartly executed and well explained

DA: link chain, specifics, impact analysis

K: you do you, but please understand what you're saying otherwise I will not pretend that I do...so like, clarity and avoid long overviews

K aff- sure

ill evaluate anything probably, but i prefer evaluating structural arguements, so i get sad when they're brought up but covered/become a wash

I competed in college in Policy Debate [so long ago- melting polar ice caps was an unlikely impact :(] and was a DSR*TKA National Champion in Duo. I was a litigation attorney for 14 years. Since 2011 I have coached high school speech and debate for Christ Episcopal School. We primarily compete on our local circuit.

Please clash directly with your opponent's argument, tell me what is at stake, what I am weighing, and impact your case out. I prefer "calm and fast" to a rapid- fire breathless diatribe; in other words, speed is fine IF I can understand you AND take a few notes. If I am not writing during the constructives- you are going too fast. I like clear voters with a good summary.

I try to come to the debate as a blank slate and will consider anything, but I have heard few kritiks that impressed me; maybe I just don't get them. I am more open to topicality/ fairness because I am primarily interested in reasoned debate on the topic than in gamesmanship.

I like respectful debate, especially when the round is lopsided; points for graciousness. Kill with kindness and be ethical with your evidence and in stating what was/wasn't said/dropped by your opponent.

The quality of the evidence matters to me, but you have to make it an issue. If you want me to vote off of a dropped argument, tell me why it matters.

Be prepared, be ethical, have fun-

brixztheflip@gmail.com

I don't have a pair of dime, but i got four nickels

T is not a voter

Fairness is not an impact

although i believe in my heart of hearts that disclosure is good, I don't care about your disclosure theory...

I vote against my personal beliefs all the time it often makes me sad

Make Art Not War

Good Luck out there, show me something I ain't seen before.

I'm not one of of these smug intellectuals, I use a lot of fancy words sometimes but I thrifted them.... so the better you can tell it like it is and give historical examples the easier it is for me to make a decision.

Judge instruction is nice... dont just say it to me, tell me what to do with it.

NO SPREADING 

1. Articulate your argument

2. Listen to your opponent

3. think on your feet

4. attack the speech not the speaker

Returning to debate after years (ok, decades) absence. I come mainly from a professional theatre, then theatre teacher background. Communicating effectively is of utmost importance for me. Variation, eye contact, sign posts all indicate that you are in control of your material.

I want to hear your argument not read it. I am NOT a fan of spreading. If I cannot hear your argument, it i very difficult for me to vote for your argument. I also do not consider jargon an effective tool in argument; your argument should stand on its own merits

Be sharp of mind, precise of speech, kind of heart

I graduated from Lafayette (Louisiana) High School in 1972. I was on the high school forensic team for three years and participated in debate for the most part, but also extemp and impromptu speaking. “Back in the day” it was only two-person teams, regular debate or CX. I am a clinical social worker and the administrator of a psychiatric hospital. I thought my judging “career” ended in the early 1980s. However, I came out of “retirement” in 2017 when my daughter joined her school’s speech/debate team as a freshman. She is currently a senior and her events are mostly extemp, debate and Congress. I have judged everything but my preference is forensic events.

The best way to get your argument through would be to approach me as what I would term an advanced lay judge. I am “old school”. I flow and pay close attention to CX. Spreading/speed … I don’t really like it, but can handle speed up to a certain point. If your words fuse together and become incomprehensible, you will lose me. By extension, if I am not able to get it down on the flow, it didn’t happen. I cannot judge what I cannot understand.J I pay attention to cards, especially the source. Dropped contentions/arguments are noted and graded accordingly. I appreciate clear logic and well explained analysis, smooth and organized speaking, and courteous behavior and respect for your opponent. Extend your arguments across the flow. My preference in LD is traditional style. I am OK with CPs, not so much with Ks. Unless required, I don’t disclose. You will have difficulty picking up body/facial language from me during a debate. I am pretty much expression-less and will have only intermittent eye contact. Please don’t mistake this as me not listening. My focus is on the words and the flow.

Update on virtual competition: Please be advised that LIVE online competition has its quirks. Before virtual debate, both competitors would often talk at the same time in CX. This was not a problem as both speaker's voices could be heard at the same time. This may NOT be the case in live online debate. Sometimes both speakers can be heard, but often the software allows only one speaker's voice to come through. In addition, with spreading or very fast speech, the software may not be as clear as in traditional live and in-your-face debate. In many instances judging virtual debates, spreading becomes garbled with static and skips ... as difficult as it is for a human in real-life debating to comprehend 500 words per minute, it seems that the software is even more confused. Just something to keep in mind and I'll try and remember to remind debaters of this before the round begins.

My judging experience is primarily in Policy/CX debate across the state of Louisiana since 2014, with experience in LD. I've taken part in this community since 2011. I competed in CX and Extemp for 4 years, earning multiple trophies from both events.

Policy:

The weight I give neg arguments in order:

1. T - extremely hard to prove to me, but outweighs everything to me

2. CP

3. DA/on-case - pretty standard arguments, probably your best bet with squo arguments

4. K - I don't like Ks, so don't run it unless it applies and you know what you're talking about

LD:

I really just need heavy solvency and weight analysis of impacts/values/criteria

Last edited: 3/21

I am a traditional judge. I place a high value on the framework debate, specifically on values and value criterion. All contentions should link back to the framework, and voters should as well. Weigh your arguments as well. At the end of your final speeches, I expect to hear clear voters. If possible, do not spread. If you are, send me the doc. I do not judge many circuit rounds.

For all debate

-> Speaker points reflect the argumentation and presentation of the debate, and awarded speaker points will reflect the overall round winner, the comparative performance of the debaters, and the overall presentation.

LD

-> I attach greater weight to values arguments than case arguments, and a well-argued value/value criterion will put a competitor in a much better position to claim the round.

-> Aff and neg both bear responsibility for advancing their own values and contentions in the face of clash. However, aff must always affirm and neg negate the resolution. Higher levels of clash will garner more speaker points.

-> Please present road signs and clearly state the tag lines of cards.

C/X

-> The aff has the burden of proof to advance the resolution. Neg can maintain status quo and successfully claim the round through negation.

-> Impact calculus is always appreciated, and clear taglines are essential in C/X. If the tag line is not clearly listed and I miss the argument being advanced, that is a serious problem that affects voters.

-> I weight dropped arguments more heavily in C/X than in LD.

I was a high school debater in the mid 1990s (in Arkansas)

I've been a debate mom/driver/occasional judge since 2015

Email: amanda.b.lawrence@gmail.com

My background is in policy debate and that's where I lean as a judge. I like to hear a debate about the resolution, and I like to hear a plan from the affirmative. That being said, I'm willing to listen to any well-articulated argument you'd care to make.

I don't mind some speed - I'll let you know if you're going too fast for me. I'm fine with being on an email chain, but I need to hear/understand you to actually evaluate the argument.

On specific arguments:

Topicality - There's a resolution for a reason, but having plenty of aff ground makes for more interesting debate and I think improves education on the topic.

Theory - I definitely think one conditional counterplan is fine. More than two feels a little abusive, but I'm open to arguments that it's not. Talking to the experienced debater I know, she says I generally lean aff on other theory questions.

Ks - Probably not the best strategy for most novices, but if you're going to go for it, be sure you explain your arguments clearly. I've listened to a fair number of K debates, but don't assume I'm familiar with authors. You can't just say "Baudrillard" and expect me to fill in the arguments. I'd rather a K on the neg have links to the aff than just to the status quo.

Generally, be nice to each other. Attacking arguments is one thing, attacking people is another. Respect people, respect their pronouns, don't use slurs.

General

- Please add me to the email chain: shannonkmathers@gmail.com

- I debated 4 years at Airline in policy, and I am a freshman at the University of Oklahoma. My coach was Martha Claire Lepore. I am not debating in college so be sure to explain any topic-specific acronyms or nuances of your arguments and slow down on short analytics.

- I am fine with speed but stay organized in speaking/signposting and organizing your speech doc, do not sacrifice clarity, do not waste speech time thanking me for judging, open CX is fine.

Framework/T-USFG

Framework can be a good strategy, just be sure to specify the role of the ballot, otherwise I will default to policymaker. I think fairness can be an impact if the team has specific arguments and bright lines as to what is or isn’t fair or educational.

Topicality

Topicality debates can be some of the most interesting debates, I default to competing interpretations so be ready to defend your aff. The fact that your aff is from camp files or is reasonably topical does not mean you automatically win this arg, debate the interpretations, violations, and standards at each level. I really enjoy impacts of fairness and education, why T is an a priori issue, and why it matters more than fiat args. T should be on top in the speech doc, do not drop it.

Case

Please debate case, even if you run a K interact with the case debate on some level. Turns on case are great and can give you offense on another flow, utilize them. Smart analytics also work well on case. If you do not have specific case evidence as neg, you can still use analytics, debate impacts with an impact file, or cross apply cards from other flows. Please interact with case in the debate, make arguments not excuses. I like existential and soft left impacts, but whatever you choose do impact calc and show me why you’re winning those impacts.

CP/ Theory

The only rules in debate are speech times and speech orders, everything else is theory. Give examples of spillover of your interpretation. I value tech over truth so if there is a theory arg be sure to address it. If you drop it, I will default to the other interpretation. Have a block ready for basics like condo so you don’t end up in trouble or scrambling to answer lots of theory voters. CPs are great, especially when there’s internal net benefits as well as external net benefits in DAs. Internal net benefits can get lost with the other team because it’s not its own flow, use this to your advantage.

Kritiks/K Affs

I am probably not the judge for you if you want to go for this. I will listen to it, but really slow down and explain the literature and overviews. I will have a hard time not allowing the other team to weigh/ access policy impacts, so you should explain why your impacts really matter more and what my role as the judge is.

Extra things I enjoy/ will get you more speaks

Being organized

Use a speech doc. If you send out a master file of a DA, another one for a CP, and another for case, I cannot find the individual cards you’re reading or compare evidence. Speech orders are also important, if you’re aff case at the beginning, if you’re neg at the end, and always T on top. Signposting between cards (say next or and), between parts of an arg, and between flows will help so much. Yes, it takes time, but when you don’t tell me you’re answering the DA instead of the CP all that ink will go on the CP flow. Messy debates are not fun, and I want to be able to evaluate all your awesome arguments, so tell me where to put them and what they answer. Line by line is also part of being organized, and when you are doing line by line and argument resolution it makes debates clean and easy to evaluate.

Listing voters

The last 2 speeches of the debate should have numbered reasons why you are winning, it makes it super clear what I should evaluate. If one of these reasons is “they dropped the DA” tell me why that matters in the big picture of the debate. Do argument resolution (their card is not specific to this scenario, we provide more relevant info) rather than they say no war, we say war.

Focusing on strategy

Yes, out spreading the other team is a strategy, and if 15 pieces of paper in a debate is your thing, I’m all for it, but if you can be more nuanced with fewer args I’d love to see that too. I will be more impressed if you pick a strategy and go for 1-2 things rather than juggle 7 DAs and 5 CPs (I will still vote you up if you win on the flow with 15 sheets of paper, so don’t worry).

Respecting others

Respect the other debaters and judges, and do not talk over each other in CX (especially if it’s your own partner that you’re talking over). If there is an ethics issue in the debate (like clipping, a problematic comment, etc) I will consider that and stop the debate.

Unless I am specifically told not to disclose my decision, I will give an RFD right after the round. Even if I am told not to disclose my decision, I will still give speaking/ organization critiques right after the round. If you have questions about a round, my paradigm, or debate questions in general, send me an email! I am excited to judge your debate!

SIGNPOST(x1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000)

Please weigh impacts and give voters. Otherwise, I will create my own voters, and you don't want that.

If it is not on the flow, I will not look to it. That being said, I will not extend things for you. If you want it to be important, it needs to be extended all the way through all speeches you give.

I don't adore speed, but I can listen to it and flow it. Be strategic about it.

If it seems a little out of the box as an argument, please break it down for me.

Also, unnecessary yelling is not really something I vibe with. I get it, passion good, but if It's the first round of the day and you make a conscious effort to not give me a headache, I will be much nicer on speaks and ballot comments.

If you want to run theory, either put it in a shell or make sure that you talk about all the important parts of the theory. If it isn't impacted or accompanied by how I should change my vote, it has wasted round time

From the beginning, I think debaters need to understand that I was never a policy debater myself. I took over a successful team at Caddo when they needed faculty support, and the debaters and alums taught me the activity. Over the next fifteen years I learned enough to teach it to novices and intermediates. I judged actively for about fifteen years, but since bringing a new coach to our school seven years ago, I have not been in many rounds. If you want someone who is going to understand clipped references to acronyms or core camp affs that you think everyone already knows on the NATO topic, I am not that guy. You are going to have to break things down and explain. I am a flow judge, but very rusty.

Now, Caddo has been known as a fairly critical team over the last decade, and I have learned to appreciate those arguments a good bit. As someone who teaches sociology, psychology, and philosophy at my high school, I am sympathetic to many identity arguments, critiques of epistemology, etc. However, I am not going to be down with a lot of jargon-filled blocks on framework—you must explain why I should weigh your project or method against fairness arguments of the policy world. I like the kind of literature discussed in critical rounds, but I have voted for policy affs outweighing a critique in different debates, especially where the aff won the framework and the neg did not.

That being said, I am very comfortable listening to case, disad, counterplan rounds. I think topicality sets important rules of the game & so if you plan to flout those rules, you better have a compelling reason. I certainly value the kind of knowledge and skills that policy debaters learn through the activity.

Ethos matters. We all know how important cross-ex is to establishing a confident position, but don’t be rude. If you can have a really competitive round and still treat your opponent—and your partner!—with respect, then that goes a long way with me on speaker points.

Email chain—yes. nnormand.cmhs@gmail.com

I am not a proficient enough typist to flow on the laptop, but if you signpost your arguments well enough, I should be able to flow a debate at speed. Being able to read the evidence during the speech certainly helps me though.

Do what you do best in front of me, give full explanations of why I should vote for you, and you will be ok. Make blippy arguments that claim you won because of something that was barely in the debate and dropped by the other team—then no matter how pissed you act when “post-rounding” me at the end, you will still have lost.

This is a great activity. Have fun with it & don’t take yourself too seriously, then we all win.

I have experience with debate, competing with Lincoln-Douglas. I am open to any arguments as long as you can prove them successfully. I do not like aggressiveness during cross examination and I like all speech to be at conversational speed.

I am a traditional judge. I place a high value on the framework debate, specifically on values and value criterion. All contentions should link back to the framework. If possible, do not spread.

As someone who does research on ld/pf/policy topics before judging, I can tell you that I will be looking to make sure that:

1. arguments are effective

2. debators speak and argue in a formal manner (don't like screaming matches)

For speech:

connect with me :) i want to hear your story!! (or the story you are telling)

Hello,

First off, thanks for taking the time to stop by and read my paradigm. This will help you immensely in your debate!

I was a policy debater in high school. I understand the "game." I was a state champaign and have competed on the national level. If you have any questions please feel free to reach out to me tyyyyyyler.ts@gmail.com

I would define myself as a stock issue judge with tabula rasa tendencies.

Topicality, to win on a Topicality argument you must satisfy these standards

Violation – What word(s) in the resolution have been violated? – How should these words properly be defined?

Impact – Why is this a voting issue?

Please keep this argument debatable, do not offer an obscure definition of an article adjective to prove your point. I hate to vote solely on topicality but I will.

Inherency, I need Structural vs Attitudinal.

Solvency, I will vote on 3 things here. Impracticability, insufficiency, and counter-productivity. Lay these out for me.

K is OK but please keep your link clean.

Finally, I love a competitive argument for Advantages/Disadvantages. Keep this line by line and you will be in the clear.

Please spread to your heart's content! I will stop typing when you need to slow down. Keep your tags, and dates clear. Please do not pass out, that is a lot of time and paperwork.

To answer you, before you ask me in the round. I do not want a copy of your case. I truly believe it is your job to sell it to me completely. It is not my job to read and follow along. It is on you and your partner to make sure I understand your case. I really hate how this is the new debate culture.

I will award a win to a team with lower speaker points if their point was proven. Dependent on tournament rules.

I will offer critique on your speech style and gestures if asked. I will not offer a verbal opinion on your case, until after the results are posted. This may differ depending on tournament rules.

Info about me: I was a high school competitor and have done LD for about 2 years. I know the rules and I will not tolerate any harassment or abuse during a round. This is mainly for personal attacks, and if this happens, it will be an automatic loss and taken to the tab room. Keep the debate civilized.

For speed, I do not mind if you are talking fast, be careful do to the tournaments being online. I do not allow spreading in my rounds. If you are speaking to fast for me, I will signal you to slow down

I do flow my rounds, so if I am looking down, I am still paying attention. I also listen to cross and that may be included with my judgment, however please don't only use the cross for clarification, makes the debate lose speed and clash.

For arguments, I am looking for a logical debate from both sides, I do not want a debate over definitions, or only framework, debate the cases as a whole. Evidence is encouraged for attacking and blocking, however do not rely on it entirely, too much information is just as bad as too little. If you are going to use hypothetical, please don't give the most extreme because that is unrealistic and brings down the debate.

camera update: 9/3/2021- I live in an apartment complex with spotty internet. So I will be defaulting to keeping my camera off during the speeches. If the speeches sound clear after the first two constructive lsu I’ll try turning my camera on. Also no need to ask me if I’m ready, just default that I’m ready, and if I’m not I’ll unmute myself and let you know.

TLDR: Not super in touch with recent trends in debate, and very heavily prefer policy. Speed is no problem for me, just start slower and slowly work up to about 80% Max speed. Please note if you’re reading Non T or Phil, please do a good job explaining it to me. Oftentimes in these rounds I’m not getting enough info about why I should be voting one way or the other. I do not disclose unless the decision was extremely easy. Otherwise I prefer to give detailed info on my ballot and am open for questions using the email chain that you sent me your case in.

1: LARP/ Substance

2: Kritik

3-4: Theory

5-Strike: Performance, High Phil

Add me to the email chain: abbusp@gmail.com (REMEMBER send me cards before your speech that you'll be reading. If you're spreading analytics send me that as well. If analytics will not be spread I don't need them in the doc)

1. Speed: Here's my take. I've been debating for a while so I can keep up with speed. HOWEVER, with everything being online clarity has become a HUGE issue. Please go much much slower than you normally would. You don't have to go at a lay pace, but just remember I only say clear twice, before I put my pen down. What I miss will be held against you.

2. Theory: Remember fairness and education come first. Debate is an activity about fairness, and theory is meant to address that. IT IS NOT meant to let you opt out of substantive arguments. For this reason, I don't really enjoy theory and RVI debates. Keep everything on the resolution. Theory just serves the purpose that the debater running the shell, lets me know the violation and why it should warrant dropping the other debater. The debater going against the shell, just defend yourself and move on, don't drop everything and go for winning off the RVI because it won't hold any weight for me.

3. Stylistic: I'm very lenient with speaker points and usually give extremely high speaks. Please give me concise voters in your final speeches. They will have the most magnitude for me because it allows me to determine what the main issues you are going for are. Please impact everything, don't just read random cards and move on. Also don't just card dump, I want to see you construct meaningful arguments.

4. VERY IMPORTANT: Please Read. Before your speeches I want the cards you will be reading. Too many competitors send the cards after their speech, at which point there is not enough time to evaluate the cards because the next speech has started. I want to be able to follow along as you read your cards. Please note that this means sign posting will be VERY important. If you're going 600 WPM, and not sign posting anything you've already lost me. SLOW DOWN On tags and authors. Let me hear those clearly before you ratchet up your speed. Any analytics or non cards not in the case doc need to be at a reasonable speed. You can spread what's on the doc.

Please include me on the email chain at jstewartdebate@gmail.com. Feel free to ask questions always.

I competed for Barbe High School, McNeese State University and Western Kentucky University. I competed in IEs in both high school and college. I debated L-D and policy in high school on the local, Louisiana circuit. I also competed nationally in college in IE’s, Parli, NFA L-D policy and some CEDA/NDT. I have judged in Louisiana and around the region for the last 15 years.

TLDR: I was a policymaking type debater. Weighing net-benefits is what I am most familiar with. I try to be as “tab” as possible and will evaluate any argument. It needs to be well warranted, well impacted and well weighed against the rest of arguments in the round. You might need to do slightly more work fleshing out newer forms of argumentation with me, but I will vote on them if I feel like you are winning them.

I am self-professed “lazy” judge. I want to feel like I am doing the least intervening possible at the end of the round. I would love for you to tell me which arguments are important enough for me to vote on, what their comparative impacts are and why you are winning those arguments. I appreciate you telling me how I should sign my ballot.

I am still somewhat old school around paperless debating- it just wasn’t a thing yet when I was competing or judging the first go around. I use e-mailed/flashed evidence mostly for reading internal warrants. I will use this to follow along the speech, however I’m not a fan of reading speech docs/blocks in a vacuum. Signposting and clear organizational structure are important for me and I tend to award higher speaker points for them.

POLICY-

K/Kritikal Aff- I have a pretty good familiarity with critical theory/thought. I am probably less familiar with the intricacies of Kritik debate theory. You would probably be helping yourself out with me to spend a bit more time on setting up your framework and giving really clear impact stories. Explicit arguments about “how we win” or “the role of the ballot” would help me better understand how/why to vote for you on these types of positions. This is especially true if there are situations like perms put on the alternative. I want to know why the alternative alone solves best on its face, in addition to any theoretical objections to the perm. I also appreciate clear pre-fiat/post-fiat analysis. If the impact is post-fiat (“turns case”) and the alternative is pre-fiat (“discourse/radical space/etc”) I want you to tell me how to navigate the multiple levels of your advocacy.

T/Procedurals- I tend to have a slightly lower threshold on procedurals. I do not need an iron clad in-round abuse story necessarily. I will evaluate these more often than many.

LD-

I tend to vote on framework first. That is just how I was taught. But with more progressive styles I will evaluate framework in light of case advantages/disadvantages. As with the Kritik info above, you may need to do a little more hand holding with me around the alternative and/or role of the ballot. I tend to prefer crystallization at the end of the round with clear impact analysis and tend to give higher speaks to those that show good round vision and can ‘boil down’ the round effectively.

PF-

I’m comfortable with the newer trend of giving an explicit framework at the top of case. If you don’t give me one then I’ll default to something like policymaking/comparative advantages. I tend to appreciate probability over magnitude in PF because of the lack of depth of evidence. Things that are intuitive and make sense on their face seem like a more natural fit to this style of debate. I will evaluate anything that is argued in front of me, though. It needs to be well warranted, well extended (including extending the warrants), well impacted and well leveraged against the other argumentation in the round for it to be most persuasive. I like final focus speeches that crystallize the round for me and give me good impact analysis. Feel free to take the ballot out my hands by telling me what arguments are most important, how they function in the round and why you are winning on them.

IE’s-

I tend to think about most IEs in terms of argumentation. This is more obvious for events like Extemp, Impromptu and Original Oratory. But even interp events use a text to craft a narrative with a unique point of view for each competitor. I usually evaluate IE’s on the clarity of your thesis (argument) and then how well you do at expressing/supporting it (advocacy). The more you can distill down an idea into its clearest form and then use multiple rhetorical tools to express it, the better chance you will have of getting higher ranks and higher speaks from me. FYI I’m a big fan of variety as a rhetorical tool (fast and slow rate, loud and soft volume, high and low intonation, etc). These tend to keep me more engaged in the speech/performance and tend to make me trust you more as a speaker/performer.

UPDATED: 2/15/2024- California Round Robin

Quick Tips:

-Please be clear- No exaggeration my eardrums are nonexistent. I'm like half deaf.

-Over explanation> Blips- I understand your arguments, I just haven't judged them enough to make extrapolations for you.

-Send analytics too- Its ethically shady to not. Debates are won by the better debater, no the better trickster. Also, see tip 1.

Paradigm Proper

TL;DR: Check Bolded

GENERAL STUFF:

I wanna keep this relatively simple, so: Hi, I'm J.D. Swift. I am a former competitor and former coach of Holy Cross School, currently an Assistant at The Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men (New Orleans, La). I'm too old to use this platform as an ego boost so I won't bother re-putting my qualifications, accolades, etc. I have either judged, coached, or competed (or done all of the above) in nearly every event under the sun, so I'd call myself pretty familiar.

My resting face may not prove it, but I am always approachable. If you have any questions about stuff before or after around, and you spot me, please don't hesitate to have a conversation, its why I still do this activity.

For Everyone:

+ I do not tolerate any forms of: racism, transphobia, homophobia, xenophobia, or ableism. This activity is special because it is the most inclusive activity that I know of. This space actively works to include all members of society and I will not stand for any tarnishing of that. I do not believe that you will be any of those things, but if it happens in round, I will stop the debate, give you a loss with the lowest possible speaks, and have a conversation with your coach.

+ I prefer an email chain, please add me:jdswift1028@gmail.com

+ I prefer to disclose. You won't be able to adjust from round to round if you don't know exactly how you won or lost a round. That being said: if any competitor in the round would prefer me not to disclose, I will not.** I also don't disclose speaks, that's just kinda weird to ask **

+ On Postrounding: I'm absolutely down to answer any and all questions as long as time permits. I take pride in the notes I take alongside the flow to give back to debaters. However, if you begin to challenge my decision, or (yes, this has happened before) you get your coach to challenge me, you can finish postrounding with the empty chair I left behind.

+ I know you care about speaker points. I don't give a whole lot of 30s (you can fact check me on this) so if you get one from me, I will be speaking high praises to others about your stellar performance. 2 rules of thumb for if you have me as a judge: 1. Make the debate accessible, 2. Let your personality shine through. No, I won't clarify on what those things mean. ;)

+ My face is very readable. This is semi-intentional. If I'm confused, you will see it. If I'm impressed, you will see it.

+ If you don't see me writing, specifically if my pen is obviously away from the paper/iPad (usually palm up) and I'm just staring at you, then I'm intentionally ignoring your argument. (I only do this when you are clearly over time, or if you are reading new in the 2)

+ In terms of intangibles such as: Your appearance, dress, how you sit or stand, etc. I do not care at all. A wise man once said: "Do whatever makes you comfortable, I only care about the arguments." -JD Swift, (circa 20XX)

For Novices:

+ I hate information elitism, meaning, if any jargon or terms in my paradigm confuse you-- please, please, please ask me for clarification.

+ Debate is a competitive activity, but it is foremost an educational one. If you see me in the back of the room, please do not feel intimidated, we as coaches and judges are here for y'all as competitors.

For LD & Policy:

+ Run whatever you like, please just explain it well. If you don't trust your ability to provide quality warrants on an argument, do not run it.

+ Please extend full arguments, most importantly the warrants. Not just impacts, Not just card names, but all of it.

+ No amount of signposting is too much. The more organized you are, the better I can give you credit.

+ Speed does NOT impress me. I can hang, but if you're sacrificing clarity for speed, I won't strain myself trying to catch the argument. If you want to go fast, go for it, just make sure you're clearly distinguishing one argument from the next, and that your tags and authors are clear.

+ Please do not reread a card, unless the card is being re-read for a different purpose(re-highlighting, new warrants, etc.). You're killing your own speech time.

+ If an argument or concession is made in cross, and you want credit for it, it has to show up in speech. I'll listen out for it, but if I don't hear it, in speech, it didn't happen.

+ Not a fan of petty theory at all. If there is real, round impeding abuse, I'll vote on it in your favor. If the theory argument is petty, I give RVI's heavy weight.

+ I don't like tricks. This is not a forum for deception.

+ If you're gonna kick the alt on the K, and use it as a disad, please articulate why the disad is a sufficient reason to not pass the plan.

FOR PF

+ Framework is important, otherwise I believe topic areas get too broad for this format. Win your framing and then use that to win your impact calculous. That's the fastest way to my ballot.

+ I have little patience for paraphrasing. If you want credit for evidence, read the card and give context.

+ I hold PF to the same evidence ethics and standards as Policy and LD.

Most importantly: please have fun; If what you are doing is not fun then it's not worth your time.

The things:

Npiredebate@gmail.com

Affil: Baylor, Georgetown University, American Heritage and Walt Whitman High School.

If you think it matters, err on the side of sending a relevant card doc immediately after your 2nr/2ar.

**New things for College 2023-24(Harvard):

Weird relevant insight: Irrespective of the resolution- I am somewhat of a weapons enthusiast and national security nerd.

Yes, I am one of those weirdos that find pleasure in studying weapon systems, war/combat strategy and nuclear posture absent debate. Feel free to flex your topic knowledge, call out logical inconsistencies, break wild and nuanced positions etc. THESE WILL MAKE ME HAPPY(and generous with speaks).

In an equally debated round, the art of persuasion becomes increasingly important. I hate judge intervention and actively try to avoid it, but if you fail to shore up the debate in the 2nr/2ar its inevitable.

Please understand, you will not actually change my mind on things like Cap, Israel, Heg, and the necessity of national security or military resolve in the real world...and its NOT YOUR JOB TO; your job is to convince me that you have sufficiently met the burden set forth to win the round.

Internal link debates and 2nr scenario explanation on DAs have gotten more and more sparse...please do better. I personally dont study China-Taiwan and various other Asian ptx scenarios so I will be less familiar with the litany of acronyms and jargon.

***

TLDR:

Tech>Truth (default). I judge the debate in front of me. Debate is a game so learn to play it better or bring an emotional support blanket.

Yes, I will likely understand whatever K you're reading.

Framing, judge instruction and impact work are essential, do it or risk losing to an opponent that does.

There should be an audible transition cue/signal when going from end of card to next argument and/or tag. e.g. "next", "and", or even just a fractional millisecond pause. **Aside from this point, honestly, you can comfortably ignore everything else below. As long as I can flow you, I will follow the debate on your terms.

Additional thoughts:

-My first cx question as a 2N/debater has now become my first question when deciding debates--Why vote aff?

-My ballot is nothing more than a referendum on the AFF and will go to whichever team did the better debating. You decide what that means.

-Your ego should not exceed your skill but cowardice and beta energy are just as cringe.

-Topicality is a question of definitions, Framework is a question of models.

-If I don't have a reason why specifically the aff is net bad at the end of the debate, I will vote aff.

-CASE DEBATE, it's a thing...you should do it...it will make me happy and if done correctly, you will be rewarded heavily with speaks.

-Too many people (affs mainly) get away with blindly asserting cap is bad. Negatives that can take up this debate and do it well can expect favorable speaks.

More category specific stuff below, if you care.

Ks

From low theory to high theory I don't have any negative predispositions.

I do enjoy postmodernism, existentialism and psychoanalysis for casual reading so my familiarity with that literature will be deeper than other works.

Top-level stuff

1. You don't necessarily need to win an alt. Just make it clear you're going for presumption and/or linear disad.

2. Tell me why I care. Framing is uber important.

My major qualm with K debates, as of late, mainly centers around the link debate.

1. I would obvi prefer unique and hyper-spec links in the 1nc but block contextualization is sufficient.

2. Links to the status quo are links to the status quo and do not prove why the aff is net bad. Put differently, if your criticism makes claims about the current state of affairs/the world you need to win why the aff uniquely does something to change or exacerbate said claim or state of the world. Otherwise, I become extremely sympathetic to "Their links are to the status quo not the aff".

Security Ks are underrated. If you're reading a Cap K and cant articulate basic tenets or how your "party" deals with dissent...you can trust I will be annoyed.

CP

- vs policy affs I like "sneaky" CPs and process CPs if you can defend them.

- I think CPs are underrated against K affs and should be pursued more.

- Solvency comparison is rather important.

T

Good Topicality debates around policy affs are underappreciated.

Reasonability claims need a brightline

FWK

Perhaps contrary to popular assumption, I'm rather even on this front.

I think debate is a game...cause it is. So either learn to play it better or learn to accept disappointment.

Framework debates, imo, are a question of models and impact relevance.

Just because I personally like something or think its true, doesn't mean you have done the necessary work to win the argument in a debate.

Neg teams, you lose these debates when your opponent is able to exploit a substantial disconnect between your interp and your standards.

Aff teams, you should answer FW in a way most consistent with the story of your aff. If your aff straight up impact turns FW or topicality norms in debate, a 2AC that is mainly definitions and fairness based would certainly raise an eyebrow.

"The basic rule I try to abide by is that I can be persuaded to vote on any argument, and that teams are best left to “doing their own thing” in front of me. I have several pre-dispositions and biases, but generally teams are best left to trying to execute the strategies they are most comfortable with and modify them to my expectations and standards, rather than start wholesale." - Ryan Galloway

My name is Garrett, and I am a former varsity debater at Airline High School and Samford University. I have judged two TOC bid rounds in policy, but that was a few years ago. When I was a debater, I mainly used policy arguments, theory, and kritiks, with some framework when I was negative. I left the community to pursue a PhD in political science, and I only come back when I'm asked to volunteer to judge some rounds. I've judged plenty more rounds than my Tabroom page would indicate, but that was before every decision was uploaded to the internet. My role model for judging is Ryan Galloway, a well-respected member of the NDT community, and I share his views that debaters should generally execute their favorite strategies for me. Full disclosure is good, however, and deep down inside I do have my own nuances for judging that are stated here. This philosophy is designed to introduce you to the ideals/biases about how debate should work.

Policy Affirmatives/Disads/Counterplans:
I love to hear intense battles on these issues. I'm not familiar with the acronyms developed for the current topic, so make the first constructive tags clear. But I won't be lost on your impact calculus debates, and I love debaters who make nuanced, effective arguments on all of the policy positions.

Kritiks:
I have grown to love kritiks. I especially love kritiks specific to the topic. I will admit, however, I still do not understand some criticisms, like Lacan, so your explanations of theoretical underpinnings of your criticism need to be crystal clear. I do know how you lose to a K, however, so you shouldn't fear. I don't have a preordained stance on reps in round or the role of the ballot, so you are going to have to sell well for me not to evaluate the plans' implications.

Many (though certainly not all) good K's attack the opponent on a number of grounds, including their epistemology, ethics, and the role of the ballot. But while these are good arguments to make, I cannot stress enough that good debaters will explain how they indict their opponents arguments. For an example, I recently judged a round where a team kept saying that "Western knowledge production was flawed". I was intrigued, but ultimately did not find such arguments persuasive because they did not explain what part of their opponents knowledge was flawed (and the Affirmative's explanation of their reasoning seemed sound). This specificity is necessary for me to vote on such arguments.

I've noticed lately that some K debaters are getting really good at the hard parts of debate (the link flow) but struggling to have the same quality on the easy parts (the impact debate). I consider all arguments in debate important, even inherency on the Aff and Impacts on the Neg K, and I will vote a team down for not clearly articulating why a particular school of thought is good/bad. Links don't matter if there's no impact, ya dig?

Topicality:
I tend to lean reasonability for the aff. I will pull the trigger on T if you can prove abuse (they spiked out of our disad) or provide nuanced definitions for terms unique to the current resolution. It will often be difficult to win T, however, if you spend only a minute or two on it in the block/2NR.

Theory:
I encourage theory debates on specific arguments that you really believe are abusive. Likewise, I can recognize timesucks and don't think they contribute much to the intellectual merit of the round. I tend to lean towards conditions, consult, and policy-specific PIC's are bad, but the Aff's execution of theory debate must be higher than what I've seen from high-schoolers (my former self included). 1 conditional argument probably isn't bad, and 4 conditional arguments probably isn't good, but the better debaters on theory can win on rather sketchy theory claims.

Project/Performance:
I'm willing to listen to your personal stories, but I would do a disservice to everyone if I did not mention that I have reservations about personalizing debate. We run into some serious risks of race-to-the-bottom in terms of oppression stories when we personalize debate, and there is a chance that such strategies will be hijacked by the privileged when we allow them.

I have strong concerns about fairness when the Affirmative refuses to defend the topic (with the implicit argument in my mind that a violation of fairness is disrespectful/dehumanizes opponents). If you are on neg, however, do whatever you want; your mission is to negate the affirmative by any means necessary.

FYI:
I think that switch-side debate that is predictable and accessible to both teams is the best form of education.
I don't think a single debate can change anything structurally in the debate community.
I think change in the community best happens from building alliances, not divisiveness.

My name is Caroline Villemarette. I am a senior Public Policy Leadership major at Ole Miss. I was the captain for the debate team at Teurlings Catholic for 2 years. I have been involved in speech and debate for 4 years. I competed on my local circuit but I do a few circuit tournaments a year. I was a double-octo finalist at the Harvard tournament. I was a semi finalist at The Winston Churchill Classic. I am a two time NCFL qualifier. I double qualified in Extemp and LD in 2019. I have also attended VBI and the Harvard debate camp. I served as captain of the forensics team at my school (and have successfully coached a state champ). I was also on the Louisiana World Schools team for NSDA

PREFERENCES FOR ROUND (LD):

1. I enjoy value clash. Make sure you have a strong framework and a good standard to base your case around. Don't bore me with "my value goes before theirs because human worth is goes before social good". Explain to me why you are winning the value debate, and have a good criterion to measure your value.

2. I vote on flow. I am a person who stutters so I totally understand stuttering in a round and will not vote you down because of stuttering or any other speech impediment. However, there is a fine line between have a speech impediment and just not knowing what you are talking about. If you are a person who has a speech impediment, please try to sign post (I know it is difficult). This is just so I can follow along. Regardless, sign posting is very important at all times!!!

3. Spreading. I can follow spreading, but I really don't want to. If your spreading is clear go for it AS LONG AS YOUR OPPONENT SAYS ITS OKAY. If your opponent asks you to not spread, do not spread.

4. Progressive debate. I hate k's. Do not run them UNLESS they are topical and you have a direct link. Theory: NO unless you have a valid abuse but if you run frivolous theory, you will loose. I like disadds and counter plans.

5. Have fun! Make jokes! Don't be rude! Respect your opponent. I will only disclose and give oral critiques if the tournament allows it.

I am a first-year JD Candidate at Cornell Law School. I debated in high school, but am not familiar with this year's topic. I ran all kinds of arguments in my day, and I will run with whatever you throw at me. However, there are a number of arguments I am not familiar with, and I have a high threshold for explanation.

Whatever you run, framing will be critical, as I really don't want to end up having to a complex risk analysis weighing the probabilities of different nuclear war scenarios on my own. I'm lazy. Tell me how you think I should decide the round and why. If you do this well, I will pull the trigger on any kind of argument, from the theoretical to the kritical to the political.

I did debate policy debate for four years, primarily on the nat circuit. I was a 2A and pretty much solely a K debater. I don't have much experience with the criminal justice topic. Pronouns: she/her

TL;DR: Run whatever you want; I will evaluate any arguments you make, but I will not do the work for you. You should go with whatever strategy you think you can execute best. That being said, I am probably a better judge for K-oriented teams than teams that run 7 off every neg round and love getting super techy, especially since I've been a bit removed from the debate world for a minute, although I won't hesitate to vote up FW, a DA, or a policy aff if it's the most compelling arg in the round.

Here are my personal thoughts regarding specific arguments:

T: I hold T to a high standard. Generic T shells with no insight as to why the aff is uniquely bad will not convince me. You will also need to articulate and win impacts to the T as well as why it should be an a priori issue. A 2NR on T will need to be legitimately convincing. I've noticed that a lot of teams are now trying to combine T and FW into one argument, which is basically a huge headache to listen to; either make them two separate arguments or pick one. I default to competing interps.

CPs: I don't usually have a problem with multiple CPs as long as doesn't get too wild (7 conditional CPs is probably not legit). You need to have a clearly articulated net benefit as well as an explanation of whatever aff solvency there is. If you are aff, I need an explanation of why the perm functions as well as solvency deficits/net benefits to the perm. Super complex CP theory is annoying to me because I've never really done that type of debate, I can still follow it but make sure you slow down. PICs are usually fine as long as there's a clear reason they're distinct from the aff.

DAs: Sure. Having reasons why the DA turns the case is strongly suggested.

Theory: Being primarily a K debater, I'm biased against uber conservative theory (like Ks bad, etc). You need to prove in-round abuse, you're not likely to win the round on potential abuse with me as a judge. You are also probably not going to win the round on a minor theory arg. All theory args should have a clear structure; you can make a vagueness bad arg or whatever but if you don't impact it out I'm not voting on it. Your arguments should be specific to the round and the violation at hand.

Ks: I love Ks, and I'm familiar with all of the common authors used in debate rounds. That being said, don't assume I know your lit base. The link debate is very important to me as well as the framing of the kritik; do not assume I know how you want me to weigh certain arguments or that I know how you want me to view the aff. Also, if you're going to run a K, please know what you're talking about. There is nothing more frustrating than when someone reads a K with absolutely no knowledge of the subject or what the K does. Don't do it. That being said, I love judging K vs. policy or K vs. K debates and seeing teams do cool new things with critically based argumentation, provided that it's executed well.

K affs: I'm down with K affs, but you need to have clear reasons as to why your advocacy is uniquely important and can effectively resolve whatever harms you isolate. Again, don't assume I know your lit base. I was a 2A who almost exclusively ran K affs so I can def get behind this style of debate. If you have me as a judge, it's probably better if your aff does a thing, but I don't need a plan text/advocacy statement.

Framework: If you are running framework against a K aff, I will hold it to a high standard and you will need to be able to articulate impacts/reasons why their advocacy is uniquely bad for debate. Again, I was a 2A who ran K affs for all of high school, so I would appreciate hearing new and/or less generic framework args instead of the same shells your team has been reading for years. I love a good TVA.

Speaks: 28 is average. My speaks will almost always range between 27-29.5. If you are completely apathetic about the debate (e.g. hardly using your speech time or clearly not making an effort) I will go lower than that. If you say anything seriously offensive/problematic I will give you the lowest speaks possible.

Arguments I Really Hate: Obnoxious troll arguments and racism/sexism/ableism/etc good arguments. I'll flow the arguments, but know that it will kill your speaker points and I will have a conversation with you and your coach after the round. There will be a very low threshold for the other team with these arguments.

Other: Speed is great, but be clear on tags, and slow down on your theory blocks if you read them. If I can't understand you, I cannot evaluate the arguments you make, and I won't hesitate to shout out "clear" during your speech if it comes to that. Profanity doesn't bother me as long as you don't say anything that's actually problematic, but if you say a slur you can't reclaim during the round and it's brought to my attention I will automatically vote you down. Don't be disrespectful to your opponents, your partner, or me. Don't post-round me either. Open CX is fine as long as you don't overwhelm your partner. I don't take prep for flashing evidence. Yes, I want to be on the email chain, and you can email me if you have any questions: amandawatson1119@gmail.com