Please add me to the email chain leonoracrane101@gmail.com

Background

9 years of debate experience.

I tend to find critical debates more interesting than policy debates despite my policy background.

I do data analysis and mainly work with Python and SQL.

TLDR

Impact calc is one of the most important things that you can do in front of me. The easier you make it for me to vote for you. The happier I will be. I try to limit the amount of judge intervention as much as possible, i.e., I will not be happy to make arguments for you.

I consider myself a tech over truth judge, but you need to impact arguments, e.g., I will not vote for a blippy theory arg with no impact.

You win debates with warrant comparison. In a "Claim" v. "Claim with a bad warrant," the poorly warranted claim wins. The alternative is arbitrary judge intervention.

Despite popular convention in debate, large magnitude impacts tend to not persuade me. I value probability over magnitude. This means that structural violence or minor war impacts are generally more persuasive to me than a nuke war scenario.

If you are bothering to say something, I will default to believing that it is a voter. This is most relevant in T or Theory debates. I will NEVER vote on "They did not say this was a voter in the 2NR or 1AR so you can't vote for them."

Don't read the same card five times in a debate. If two cards have the same claim and warrants, your time is spent better elsewhere.

I rarely read evidence in an attempt to influence my decision.

Theory

Love theory debates, but unfortunately, the norm seems to be reading theory blocks as opposed to engaging with the opponent's arguments on the line by line. If you want to win a theory debate in front of me, you need to win that your interp is better for debate as well as have DAs to your opponent's arguments.

Besides condo, theory is probably a reason to reject the arg and not the team. I am sympathetic to the arg that abusive cps/ ks justify cheater perms. So this should be said somewhere in the 2AC.

When reading t or theory in front of me, slow down. If I don't get it on my flow, I will not give it to you in the rebuttals. If you rush through theory blocs in front of me, I'll assume that its purpose is to function as a time skew for the negative rather than a potential round winner.

As a side note, if you read four conditional advocacies, you should spend a significant amount of time answering condo in the 2NC. I am not saying that four conditional advocacies are a threshold for me. Instead, if you plan on reading a strat that looks like a massive time skew for the 2AC, be prepared for me to be somewhat sympathetic to the aff.

I cannot emphasize enough. PLEASE SLOW DOWN WHEN READING THEORY BLOCKS IF YOU PLAN ON GOING FOR THEORY IN THE 2AR/2NR.

T

Same as theory, win your interp, why the aff violates it, as well as an impact.

I will probably not be persuaded that affs that are in the novice packet are unpredictable. This applies to varsity, novice and jv. I don't really care if your program contains novices or not. Your program should be contributing to the novice packet anyhow if your program voted for novices to read from the packet.

K's

To win the K in front of me, you will need to be winning a link as well as an impact to that link. Please do not read your generic K blocks in front of me. Try to be making as nuanced of arguments as possible. You can choose to kick the alt if you want ( I can always be persuaded that the aff is worse than the squo), but if you go for the alt, make args as to why it resolves the impacts outlined in your overview (it's probs smart to have reasons as to why the alt solves the 1AC as well). If you are reading a high theory K, the best way to win my ballot is to have real-world examples of how the alt operates. I'm not super familiar with K lingo. I will need words defined early on to understand your arguments fully.

Smart theory arguments are always a good idea. Affs should use reject/ vague alts as reasons to justify slightly abusive perms. Saying "perm is severance" and moving on is not an argument, and I think that the aff is justified in getting up and saying "you are right means we win no link." Make sure to establish links to theory args as early as possible and reading an impact to it.

DAs

Please note that having one good card does not justify reading a DA. I value quality over quantity. Although I will vote for politics, I am not the greatest fan of this DA. I prefer listening to topic-specific DAs.

Note that if you have a really great, specific politics DA I will be more than willing to judge it. My problem with politics DAs is specificity. I think that politics DAs fall into a trap of being rather shallow debates that some smart analytics could take out.

CPs

Slow down when reading your plan text. Spend time in the block explaining the mech as well as why it solves the case. If your cp has multiple planks, spend time developing all of the planks or don't waste your time reading them. I am generally unpersuaded by "perm do the 1AC and all possible combinations of the CP" unless the neg reads the planks conditionally.

Also, make sure that the CP has an nb. "CP solves better than the 1AC" is not a reason to vote the aff down, and the permutation probably works best.

2As, I don't think that "perm do both" is an arg, and I will not be happy if this is the perm that I have to work with at the end of the debate as "perm do both" is almost always a moving target that gets clarified in the 1AR. But because no one reads this part of my paradigm (or decides to ignore it), I'm assuming that I'm doomed to judge this arg.

If a neg team is going for CP/DA, the affirmative generally need some form of offense on either flow to win the debate. I am very much persuaded by "vote neg on the risk of a net benefit."

Framework

This is somewhat implied throughout my paradigm, but I'll directly state it here. Contextualization matters. The more specific your arguments are. The better off you will be. Affirmative teams should be winning why their aff specifically is good for education/ predictable or why predictability is bad etc. Neg teams need to win why the aff is unpredictable/ bad for education as well as win DAs to the aff's interpretation such as what other affs does the opposing side justify.

Neg teams should also be prepared not to read traditional "you must defend USFG action" interpretations. If the aff does not defend anything related to the resolution, it will probably be easier for you to win "aff must be in the direction of the topic".

Please note that you do not have to win a TVA to win framework in front of me. I do not believe that it is the burden of the negative to figure out how to topically resolve your impacts. That being said, having a TVA makes framework much easier to win.

If you are aff and reading framework against a K, the most persuasive framework argument for me is that "links must be predicated off of plan action."

Side Notes

Best way to get extra speaker points in front of me is to be funny petty (note that I did not necessarily say rude petty)

I will be giving novice debates an average of 28.4.

Spin can get you pretty far in debate rounds

My beliefs about debate are significantly more developed than this paradigm outlines. I keep this paradigm short primarily because I find super long paradigms to be too long of a read before a debate round. If you have a question ask me or email me.

I don't give off too many nonverbal cues relating to my thoughts about the round, but if you notice me stop flowing that's a good indication that either 1) You have stopped making an argument or 2) You are repeating yourself.

Novices

My threshold for what I consider an "argument" in novice is lower than in other divisions. I will vote on dropped arguments as long as they have an impact even if that impact is "they are bad for education/ fairness" with no explanation beyond that. Generally, I vote for whichever side made the fewest mistakes.

If you want to get higher speaks from me, you should be flowing all speeches and not speaking from your laptop.

Some pet peeves

DON'T BE RUDE. Debate is a game, and I will tank your speaks if I catch you being rude. I don't care if being rude is part of your argument. I'm too old and cranky for that shit.

Don't extensively interrupt during cross x or your partner's speech. Chances are that you are about to tell them something that isn't very helpful.

Procedurals:

 T-I have no artificial threshold on topicality. I will vote on abuse. Typically, cross x checks back on T.

 Ks-framwork is paramount and the alternative. Please do not run "Vote Neg" as the sole alternative. There

      should be more thought on the alt.

 Speed. I have a high school and college policy background. I coached CEDA from 93-00 and coach NPDA, parli style

  from 01-present

  Counterplans--PICS are fine. Agent CPS are fine. In the end, I am tabula rasa and will default to impact calc to resolve plan debate

  Das--uniqueness is key. Internal links are important. Please watch double turning yourself in the 2AC. I do not like performative contradictions and will vote against them

 Performance/Project-I am progressive and liberal here. Run it and defend it. If you are on the other side, debate it straight up. A counter-performance is a legit strategy.

Have fun. I dislike rude debaters. I will vote on language abuse if a team calls it (ex: sexist, racist, etc lang)

Hey y'all! I'm a pretty simple judge. I competed in Public Forum for three years in high school and just finished two years as Assistant Debate Coach at Florida State University. I was in your shoes not too long ago. Frankly, there's nothing I really look for. I judge holistically. I would say I judge much like a former debater judges; if you think you won, chances are I did too. I will say I am not a fan of fast speaking, tons of taglines, and no real debate going on. I prefer lay debate over progressive and emphasize persuasiveness. What I dislike is going for every argument rather than delivering your most memorable, persuasive point, one that's clearly more important due to work you've done through all your speeches. That's what I prefer, but if both teams wanna go full policy, that's fine too.

Debate Background: I am currently the Director of Forensics at Florida State University. My educational training is in rhetoric and my debate background is heavily influenced by policy debate. The past six years I have coached and judged BP, civic, IPDA, Lincoln-Douglass, NEDA (traditional and crossfire), NPDA, and policy debate. Prior to that, I competed, coached, and judged in policy debate. Participating in all of these formats has shaped my general views on debate.

My general view of debate:

I think that affirmatives should defend the resolution and that the negative should engage and refute the affirmatives. I am interested in arguments not argument types. I am thrilled to listen to good arguments, bring out your best research be it competing policy options, critiquing the form of debate, challenging the team's discourse, ideology, or methods, topicality, or theory. If you have me as your judge bring your best argument rather than try to adapt to what you think I might like.

Flowing info:

I flow debates with paper and pen. I only look at the speech doc during the round to clarify information for my flow or if something is being referenced in cross-ex. Additionally, I will not use the speech doc to fill in arguments that I could not clearly hear.

Things to know when debating in front of me (I'll update this as I figure out more):

Permutations need a full explanation. "Perm: Do Both" is not an argument. You do not get to say three words in one speech and then elaborate on it in a later speech. If you are trying to make a permutation then you need to develop your full argument and explain how the arguments are being done together and how they are not mutually exclusive in the speech.

I am open to form arguments on debate. For example, a negative team has 2 counterplans, 2 disads, and 2 kritiks that all contradict each other, the affirmative reads evidence about how speech acts must be viewed as a totality, conditionality does not exist, and argues that this means that judges cannot separate arguments. Then the negative can't simply say the arguments are conditional and kick out of the arguments that they want. To win the neg would have to win that speech acts are separable, conditionality does exist, and therefore they are kicking out of arguments.

For Policy Debate: Novice Rounds only, If you spread I will not listen to you I will just flow off the email chain, If you want me to listen you have to slow down, Ks preferred.

For Parlimentary (NPDA) and IPDA: Open/Varsity rounds, Topicality is a voting issue but should not be the sole reason I vote for a side otherwise I'll be annoyed.

PF: (any division) Impact calculus is key. Offense and defense is crucial and will be weighed on my flow but it helps when you bring it up yourself as well.

Debated for Liberty University.

Current: University of Florida

Yes email chain: josiahmacumber@gmail.com

TLDR: Do not feel the need to adapt to my preferences I will do my best to judge fairly. Be persuasive and tell me why arguments are important. Dropped arguments are true arguments, but you need to still explain them and why they matter.

Speaking Preferences:

Slow down on analytics people can only write/type so fast, so slow down if you want me to flow it all. Same applies for theory arguments.

I do not have a concrete method for assigning speaker points. That being said things that help are: clarity, volume (not a big fan of barely being able to hear someone), cross ex (good questions/good answers), and strategic decisions.

K: Have a specific link to plan action/reps/epistemology makes it a lot easier to win instead of generic state links- those are cool and all, but at least contextualize it. Many times bad link debating is done so that the link explanation could have been read against any affirmative on any topic. Those are bad ways of explaining a link and it should be articulated in context of the round that is being had. That can take a variety of forms such as reading through the other team's evidence and pulling quotes that prove your link argument or the logic of the link. It could also take the form of using the answers that other teams provide in cross ex. Each link should have it's own unique impact and it would behoove you to explain how the link turns the case.

Framing for these debates is essential and direction is key for what to prioritize. It's nice to win the alternative, but I don't think it's necessary. IF you are not going for the alternative make it clear otherwise I will evaluate the perm and whether the alt can overcome the instances of the links.

CP: A good CP and DA combo is a solid option for the 2NR. I also enjoy well thought out PIC's. CP's don't necessarily need evidence, but it is preferred (solvency advocate theory is probably a good arg against this).

Maybe it's just me, but after a team spreads through the planks and card for a CP I am still somewhat unsure what it does. Explanation is important in terms of explaining how it solves and why it is different from the affirmative.

DA: Explain it well and it's interaction with the case. You need to do the analysis of why it outweighs the case or turns it. Do comparative evidence analysis and provide reasons why their evidence is not as warranted or does not really answer the DA and tell me why your evidence is better. That does not mean "our ev post dates by 3 days so it's better", but rather "our evidence analyzes long term trends through X method that provides a predictive claim, and their's is an opinion article".

T: Not really a big T expert, so explanation is key.

Generally I believe that over limiting is better than under limiting due to in depth research providing better education. Provide a coherent view of what the topic would look like without the limit that you set on it versus what the affirmative justifies when you are impacting out the T debate. That could include a case list that they justify that explodes research burdens or specific ground loss. You do not have to win in round abuse. Just impact it out well and you should be good.

Analyze the other teams evidence and make smart args against it. I think that is specifically true in the context of things like T subs (some ev makes claims of what substantial is not, but does not set a standard for what is substantial).

Framework: Strategic and I vote on it. However, I think that there are a few different ways to do it that are less offensive / more strategic. Top level winning that debate is a game probably means that fairness is an impact, but that work needs to be done. If education is the impact you are going for there must be good reasons why policy education is desirable or better than critical education. I think it is less strategic to make arguments like "our education spills over and we can one day do _____ to change the system"... that relies on a notion of spill over from policy education. If that is true, why then does that spillover not apply to the affirmative and their method/epistemology?

Theory: Dropped theory arguments are pretty easy to vote on, so don't drop them. Provide a reason why the abuse outweighs any other possible impact and make it a big deal. Just don't blaze through it and expect to win even if it was dropped.

-Policy AFF's: Tell a coherent story and do good impact calculus. Often times teams forget to do that and it's a super important part of the last rebuttals. If you are reading a hard right AFF I find it is better to just stick with it and go for util/death outweighs. I really do think it's more strategic against the criticism to go hard right.

-K AFF's: I think there is a great value to critical affirmatives. Just be prepared for the framework debate and explain why your model of debate is better or have disads to their model. I find it very helpful when critical affirmative provide examples and have in depth historical knowledge about their theory. In addition, providing examples of things the aff could do or would do helps to materialize some of the theory that can make it easier to grasp especially if it is not a literature base I am familiar with.

I typically find that most teams are not ready to defend the entirety of their aff, so if you are negative against a K aff I think that a well developed PIK argument and some case arguments are rather strategic.

There is no single way to my ballot and there are often a variety of strategies that can work in the debate. Be smart and strategic... I often find that the debates I enjoy the most are guided by bold choices from the debaters.

Be nice to other debaters. That doesn't mean you can't be witty or funny just be respectful of others. I think debate is a great activity to make new friends and to enjoy yourself. There is no need to take yourself and other people too seriously, creating a fun environment to debate in makes debates 100% more enjoyable. Jokes are also appreciated. On second thought... maybe don't.

My judging paradigm is critic of argument. I believe that tabula rasa is a myth as I cannot separate myself from my life experiences, my culture, and my debate training. However, I will listen to any argument that is made, and do my very best to judge it on its merit based on logic, reasoning, evidence, and grounding in a philosophy. You need not make major adjustments to me as I have no idea where you are in your training, your coach's goals, your goals, etc. In all, don't make any major changes just because I am sitting in the back of the room, or in cyberspace, with my trusty computer.

Some points of my paradigm refer to all formats of debate; some are format and circuit specific. I strive specify when a part of my judging approach refers to a particular format and the educational objects I perceive most of that format to emphasize.

Here are some facts you need to know about me:

1) BIO-- I started debating in my native town of Winston-Salem, NC, at Paisley High School (9th and 10th grade) during the first Nixon administration (1972). Policy debate (I was taught at Wake Forest camps) was the only form of debate then, and cards were actually literal cards. I did policy debate in senior high school (R.J.Reynolds); individual events in college (competed for UNC 1977-1979), and was a graduate assistant student in individual events at Nebraska in 1983-1984, but never during that time quit judging policy debate. I was director of forensics at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, where I was the director a comprehensive tournament (we offered everything) from 1984-2001, and learned NDT and CEDA coaching because of a high student demand. My second life as a coach (technically a volunteer adviser for a student run program) started at the University of North Georgia where, as we like to say in the Southeast, a group of students "up and formed a club" and asked me to be there adviser in 2006, with club recognition coming in 2007. UNG currently has debaters and speakers from all of its campuses, and we sponsor a Pi Kappa Delta chapter.. We host end of the semester free novice tournaments, host a state IE tournament run by Berry College each spring, and are actively involved in service learning activities with the Atlanta Urban Debate League. Courses related to debate and speech that I developed and teach at UNG include Public Speaking (forensics version), Argumentation and Debate, Persuasion and Argumentation, first and second year Practicum in Debate and Speech; and third and fourth year Practicum in Debate and Speech. All courses ultimately arose from a student initiative.

In short, I am as old as the hills am still enjoying debate and speech as I enter my 50th year in the activity in 2021-2022. Nevertheless, and importantly, I am not an "argument type or style bigot" and celebrate all forms of debating and approaches to argumentation in this world.

2) Topicality--I view this as a serious ethical charge against another team. To win it, you must win the following steps of this argument hands down: 1) establish and win a clear standard for Topicality (such as reasonability (skewed affirmative); best definition (skewed negatively) or better definition (more even but even neutrality being a good thing is debatable); 2) establish clearly and virtually undeniably that the affirmative has violated a key term, or terms, of the resolution; 3 [importantly] offer a synergistic model of what a topical position would be; and 4) why topicality is a voting issue for the negative.

In extreme cases, I will even consider T as a reverse voter, if affirmative shows that a negative topicality argument is frivolous.

3) Kritiks--love them. The best debates are link wars.

4) Kritiks involving performance--love them, but be careful you way you run them if you choose to do so. The art is rapidly evolving in all circuits of debate. If your performance (or any form of argument) is generic (run round after round regardless of topic),be sure that the link to the round is tight.

5) Speed--I will ask you to be clear if I'm having difficulty keeping up with your arguments. Keep in mind that unlike policy debating with fixed resolution, I cannot look at the cards after the round as I do in policy debate or fixed topic LD, if the format involves a topic which varies each round.

6) I like the stock issues approach when the wording is policy; but am open top hypo testing, counterfactuals, anything as long as you explain your positions and defend them successfully. Again, I try not to be an argument or style "bigot" but see the above on being a critic of argument (taught to me by the UNC debate coach Bill Balthrop) years ago. Look up his writings on it--IMHO they still apply today even though debate has changed much over the past five decades of my involvement in it prior to the 2020s.

7) Structure, evidence, logic, emotional appeal, the story dimension of debating--as Martha Stewart would say, good things.

8) "Generic" arguments and turns are okay, but play the link game effectively and you will more likely come out on top. We all like novel approaches.

9) Trichot) (for NPDA debating in college)--again not a bigot against trichot arguments, although the best debates IMHO are in policy oriented debates where we go the extra step in proving what works, or what is best philosophically justified (as in who bites and does not bite a kritik).

If this is a world format round, please adhere to the commonly practiced norms in that format. Ask if any details you like to before the round in cases where I'm indicated as the chief judge.

Regardless of the format, clear claims, evidence and examples to back the claims; and impacts are the fundamental key to winning arguments and debates; the the four-step refutation process: 1) let me know which argument you are on; 2) give me a counter-argument; 3) give me reasons and evidence to prefer your counter argument; and 4) give the impact--all four steps--are the keys to neutralizing or turning arguments, IMHO, regardless of debating format or type.

Clear, numbered voting issues, labeled such, in the last rebuttals (or last three min of negative rebuttal in any form of LD), are also good and a students ability to do this often makes a difference between winning and losing a ballot when the round is close.

Don't underestimate the ability of an old man to hear your arguments.

Above all, have fun and keep it all into perspective although we are all here to compete as a vehicle for learning.