trad circuit debate is preferred :) please use all of your prep time! i really like cross-ex and crossfires. be nice and civil, ignorant behavior = instant loss. if you're neg please actually have impacts, don't just attack aff. feel free to ask questions (aanderson4560@gmail.com)

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

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

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

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

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

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

(❁´◡`❁)

Add me to the email chain: jbai251108@gmail.com

Did Speech and Debate from 2019-2022. PF 1 year and Policy 2 years. I shouldn't have trouble understanding any arguments, just be clear and show you understand what you are running.

Please be respectful to your opponents and have fun.

I am a sophomore at Harvard who competed for 4 years in high school. Most of my national experience is in congress, so I prefer traditional arguments, but I am open to all styles. If you choose circuit debate styles, you should know that I am likely unfamiliar with them, and I may need an explanation. I am very familiar with PFD and LD. If you have any questions at all, ask me before the round starts. I am willing to answer any questions about my judging. If you have any questions about my RFD, email me at hanselasri@gmail.com after the tournament is over.

PFD

- I vote off of CBA unless a team tells me otherwise. If you dislike your opponents framework, then argue against it. If you do not argue against it, I will default to that framework.

- I will call evidence that is crucial to the round or seems too good to be true.

- Speak at a moderate pace: it's best for all of us.

- Use tag-lines, or I will get confused.

LD

- Whoever wins the value-criterion debate determines how I will vote. This means that if you lose the VC debate I will use your opponents framework to vote. I recommend showing how you win both your own and your opponents VC.

- I will call evidence that is crucial to the round or seems too good to be true.

- Speak at a moderate pace: it's best for all of us.

- Use tag-lines, or I will get confused.

CON:

- I know a lot about congress, my senior year I was national runner-up in the House at NSDA, so I absolutely love congress
- Please study the three types of congress speeches: constructive, rebuttal, and crystallization.

- A good questioner sometimes has to interrupt, but there is a fine line between making your point and acting impolite (on the inverse side of this, if someone is rudely interrupting don't be rude back it just makes both of you look bad; if instead you act politely it really makes the questioner look bad and makes you look solid)

- I will call your sources if they seem fishy.

- Please tell me the location of the source, author, author's credentials, and date (this is a good habit to get into; judges at the national level love this)

- Please explain your impacts and quantify if possible.

- If you are on the affirmative, and you ask the question "what is the net harm in passing" you are not making a good argument. Congress doesn't pass bills because they aren't bad, they (try to) pass good bills. Congress defaults to passing no legislation if the legislation doesn't seem good, so you should advocate for your bill's merits on the aff not just disprove potential harms.

- POs, if I forget that you are a competitor until I am ranking that means that you did a good job. I also think POs can have fun as long as it doesn't detract from the chamber's integrity or seriousness and doesn't take up much time.

CX:

- If they call me to judge CX, know that I know very little.

- I use general debate rules to judge policy (see LD and PF).

I don't like to be confused - give me clear voting issues. If I am confused, I'll probably default to impacts / policy-maker or a simple morality question of what the right thing is to do. Speed is okay, and I'll try to follow, but speed with ridiculous breathing is obnoxious. Speed without any change in delivery for tag lines is hard to follow and hard to flow. And again, speed with an argument I'm not expecting and trying to learn is counterproductive. You can say "it's on the wiki" to your opponent all you want, but I don't feel any obligation as a judge to go read your case. Do the communicative work and teach me.

If you're going to run something unexpected (i.e. something a little squirrely or a blatantly non-topical or niche argument) or a kritik that I might not have heard before (well, any kritik, really), put in the work to explain it to me. I like learning stuff, otherwise I wouldn't spend my weekends doing this. What I don't like is being yelled and spread "at" about a philosophical premise I've never heard of before. Dumb it down for me a bit, take it a little slower, and I'll gladly come along for the lesson.

Some pet peeves (certainly not voting issues, but a paradigm is here for me to air all my complaints, right?)

- pointless off-time road maps, particularly in PF and LD. The only reason you'd need to give me this is if you're going in an unexpected order

- statements like "my opponent made a key mistake" - don't critique your opponent's performance for me. Convince me on the actual issues we're debating.My RFD may be dependent on a mistake made by a debater, but the voters you give me should be impacts in the context of the topic at hand.

- standing/sitting around while opponents "look for" evidence, saying that you'll start your prep time once they give you the evidence - always have your own evidence ready to go, and if your opponent doesn'thave it ready to go, ask them to give it to you ASAP, while you go ahead with prep time or your speech - if they are unable to produce the evidence, go after them in your next speech for that - DON'T hold up a round "waiting for evidence"

If you're reading this for Policy specifically: I didn't compete in Policy, but I've been coaching it off and on for a little over a decade, and I've judged frequently at NSDA and NCFL. That said, the circuit I coach in is fairly limited in terms of competition (like fewer than 10 teams at most tournaments), so my approach to policy tends to be pretty traditional, and I understand the event and the stock issues, but I'm not super familiar with kritiks or whatever passes for "progressive" arguments on "the circuit." (And if you can't tell by the quotation marks, as a coach in a small state focusing on just getting kids to competition, I'm a little disdainful of the elitism of "the circuit.") That said, I'm willing to listen to anything and willing to vote on anything, but you need to do the work to explain and teach me. It may be harder to get my vote with a kritik or anything else outside the realm of typical stock issues if you don't clearly explain the impacts of your argument and give me a nice Aff/Neg world comparison.

If you're reading this for LD: I didn't compete in it. I've coached it off and on, though not as much as PF and Policy. I'm going to lean pretty traditional for LD, just given my limited background and the circuit my students compete in. That doesn't mean I won't vote on plans or kritiks, but you're going to have to convince me. My default mode approaching LD is that I should be focusing on a value and criterion debate supported by some straightforward contentions, and I'm going to need a little help doing the mental jump into plans or kritiks. I'd certainly rather hear a framework debate about the values presented in the round than a framework debate about whether or not LD should allow plans, but I'll reluctantly follow along with whatever (cross apply my notes above for Policy, I guess.)

If you're reading this for Public Forum: I've coached it quite a bit, including teams that have broken at NSDA and won moderately large regional tournaments. I've also judged at nationals and major regional tournaments. I strongly object to the idea of paradigms in Public Forum debate. Access for students is a broadly discussed issue in Speech & Debate, but we need to remember that access for judges, especially volunteers, is just as important. Demanding paradigms in a debate event meant by design to be accessible to the public is, in my humble opinion, the wrong way to approach this event. I'm not exactly a "lay judge," but you should approach me in a public forum round, for the most part, as if I were a lay judge. Be organized and clear. Don't spread. Don't play games, especially when it comes to evidence and prep time. Give clear voters and an easy-to-understand Pro world vs. Con world layout.

Ask me.

I didn't compete in Policy, but I've been in debate/assisting coaches/judging for nearly 8 years. The state I'm from is relatively limited in terms of Policy competition.

I'm willing to listen to anything and willing to vote on anything, but I have very little experience with critical stuff or anything non-traditional, so I'll listen, I'll be interested, and I'll try to follow, but it may be harder to get my vote that way.

I don't like to be confused - give me clear voting issues. If I am confused, I'll probably default to impacts / policy-maker.

Speed is okay, but speed with ridiculous breathing is obnoxious. Speed without any change in delivery for tag lines is hard to follow and hard to flow

If I can't understand you I can't flow, please do not make me put my pen down, your speaks will suffer

At the top, I would greatly prefer if you sent me case docs so I could follow along during round and easily reference arguments and specific cards at my leisure. Sending thosesusom.hait@gmail.comas early as you can before round it would be optimal. Outside of that, do include me in the email chain if one is made.

Throughout High School I competed primarily in PF on the national circuit. I went to NSDA twice in PF, was a State Champion in the event, and competed in multiple nat circuit tournaments.

Despite this, I don't really like theory and arguments of this nature very much. If you explain it well enough and make me interested I might vote on theory, but don't hold out too much hope. You stand a much better chance of winning if you stick to relevant on case arguments.

I have a pretty high tolerance for speed, but you need to make sure you're clear if you're going to speak at a quicker pace.

I also want to see frontlining occur in the right speeches. (this primarily means 2nd team rebuttal addressing the 1st team rebuttal and not waiting until summary to frontline) If you fail to address an argument at the right time and your opponent says you don't bring up a response, I'm gonna drop whatever argument was attacked without a second thought.

Most importantly, be civil when you debate. Don't try to harass your opponent, intentionally talk over them, or flex that you're some debate genius. Winning one debate round in high school isn't so big a deal where trying to fight the opponent in round. Debate is about discourse before anything else, so act in a way that best suits delivering knowledge.

For LD and Policy, most of the same things apply. Remember to be coherent with clear arguments.

Don't spread.

My judging paradigm is very simple. I believe the purpose of debate is to teach competitors to think critically and communicate effectively. Evidence is only important if a competitor can tell me why it's important. It is imperative for the competitor to demonstrate a true understanding of the arguments they are making. To that end, I think spreading should be avoided when possible, but I am fine with some speed.

I like to see clear clash and persuasive argumentation. Assertiveness is good, rudeness is completely uncalled for and may cost a competitor the round if it is pervasive enough. Further, competitors should be respectful and deferential to judges regardless of the judge's experience.

Debaters should come prepared for technology catastrophes. Bring paper copies, USB storage devices, and contingency plans. I flow when I judge, so I only take things into consideration that are said in the actual debate. If you are spreading to the point that your words are unintelligible, I will put my pen down. If that happens, you will not be getting credit for anything you say until you can be understood enough for me to resume flowing.

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

On Judging Debate Events ...

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

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

On Judging Speech Events ...

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

Hello everyone. I wish you all the best of luck during your competition. For Public Forum Debate, I like to judge based on logical arguments. Please be cordial during crossfires. I do not like to see rounds where it turns into a yelling match, because it gets hard to listen to.

I'm a straight forward judge who believes in transparency, encouragement, and professionalism. Please respect your opponents and be a good sport. I look forward to be judging your rounds.

I'm a pretty chill judge and I have done PF, Policy, and LD. I have also done congress and worlds.

Tech>truth. To a degree I will only flow an arguement if you mention it, so if your opponent says something blatantly wrong you have to mention that it is blatantly wrong. Now if the argument is ridiculous and offensive I am very inclined to not flow it, but if you mention it I definitely won't.

PF: I think that being more conversational and not super technical is ok. I don't really want you to just throw cards at me instead if you explain your logic and then the link chain I will be happy. If you are going to just throw cards at me I will A: be unhappy and B: be inclined to ask for a ton of evidence which is something I don't really want to do and you probably don't want me to do. Also, make sure to extend everything you want to go for through final focus, or I cannot consider it.

Policy is really weird for me since for now I only judge novices, but the biggest thing for me is organization. Like I understand that for a lot of people this is a very daunting event, but also if you don't tagline any of your arguments I'm gonna have no clue where I am at or what I am flowing.

Also as a general note I would like everyone to disclose ev used in round to me even if you aren't sharing it between the other team.

Theory: I'd honestly rather not evaluate it, and you might not want me to evaluate it simply because I am not that experienced with it. Other than that if you do choose to run a theory argument please take the time to explain why you are running it and what particular action happened in round that caused you to run it.

K's: These are fine, but for the stuff that is a little more out there be sure to tagline well and explain your alt well.

Speaker Points are super arbitrary and I usually give pretty high points unless you're not that good at speaking.

Tapan.kotikalapudi@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

Don’t spread unless the speed you use allows for enough enunciation that I can understand. English is my second language if you speak too fast I will have hard time comprehending what you say.

for Police debate, I’m more like combination of policy maker and tabular rasa. Better policy has to make sense at first. But if 50/50, debate out needs to be done with strong argument and logics to support.

Hello!

My name is Davis Lynn, and I am currently a college student studying at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, TX (I also compete for SMU Debate). Throughout high school, I competed in various events but mainly focused on Congress. Regarding my judging, I am looking for competitors who show excellence in speaking, understanding of topics, and courtesy to their peers. Here is my elaboration on each of those points:

• Speaking is half of the name "Speech and Debate." I expect you to fill the time of your speeches, be clear and concise (I understand the internet can make that hard at times), and not cram your speech with information. I ultimately want to hear what YOU have to say, and a word vomit of sources doesn't give me anything unique to judge.

• Being accurate in a time of misinformation is critical. Skewing data or news sources is outright wrong, and I will not tolerate false statistics or misguided points. However, understanding a topic and being accurate in the points and sources you present will get you a high-scoring ballot from me.

• I know debate rounds can get heated, and you may have the propensity to yell at one another. Regardless of the circumstances, I will not buy it. The quickest way to get a losing ballot from me is to be intentionally rude to someone.

Overall, I look forward to judging you! Speech and Debate has been fundamental to my high-school and college experiences, and I hope you have experienced the same. Thank you so much for reading my spiel; I hope it helped you understand my judging philosophy.

Best wishes and Pony Up!

Updated February 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The longer version (for all forms of debate)

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

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

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

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

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

Things that will cost you speaker points/the round:

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

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

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

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

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

Lincoln-Douglas Observations

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

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

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

Public Forum Specific Observations

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

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

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

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

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

I do not like spreading. A huge part of debate for me is being able to communicate points effectively without having to create an email chain to follow along.

I know some judges do not weigh cross-ex or crossfire, but I think it's some of the most important and pivotal parts of any debate.

Off-time roadmaps are really pointless to me unless you follow them and give a detailed outline of the order, not just "their case, then mine." If you're going to give one, I want a list of the topics you're specifically going to hit (i.e. "Contentions 1-3, Voters 1-4"), and then I want you to follow through with that specified order.

I had lots of experience on the high school circuit, particularly with PF, World's, and Congress, but I am effective at flowing any debate and following lines of reasoning.

Make it make sense; do not just throw out cards without explanation or credentials. I do not care if you have 30 cards in your speeches if none of them connect or have causational links.

I am a financial advisor and have clear knowledge of the working economy and current events both domestic and international. I have judged congressional and public forum debate many times and was a former public forum and congressional debater myself. I expect all competitors to be respectful and professional during rounds. Those that only want to hear themselves talk and not allow fellow debaters to express their thoughts or answer questions will be scored negatively. Aside from that, I judge from the points made in your speech, the flow and defense of the argument, and the presentation you give. Answer questions directly without beating around the bush. I look forward to the debates to be had. Good luck!

Debates tournaments were not a part of my schooling and thus I am not very versed in technical issues with debate tournaments. So I value clarity of argument and speech. Thus fast speech is something that hinders my understanding of what the participant is trying to present. Well-paced speech which is clear in content is valued more than fast speech with more content. I also like to have participant keep their own time. If possible presenting links of reference in the chatbox are prefered.

Although I did extemp in high school, it was so long ago we tore pages from the school library's old copies of NewsWeek and U.S. News & World Report for our files. I am the parent of three former LD, PF and IE kids who have all been to national tourneys; my youngest child is competing this year in PF. Consider me a layperson in the judges seat who is familiar with the resolution and maybe even a few arguments, appreciates common sense backed up by evidence from sources that are known and not niche, and doesn't take kindly to spreading and will dock speaker points for doing so.

I like you to clearly state your sources and dates as that lets me know the slant and dependability of your evidence. I always flow on paper, so the clearer and more structured you can be, the better, but my vote won't be decided fully from the flow. I can be persuaded many times at the Crossfire rounds: it shows whether you understand your case and your evidence or if you just bought it off the internet. However, I don't enjoy verbal bullying in the round.

FOR THE EMAIL CHAIN: wwpickering@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

Overarching things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good luck and make the most of every round!

Having practice law for more than 40 years I have heard thousands of arguments and watch how they were presented. So presentation, demeanor, and delivery do come into play. While consideration of the aff and neg are important, examples to support those contentions should be presented and analogized. Cross is very important to display the deficiencies in each parties arguments. Final argument should be concise and to the point. Rules must be followed. There can not be fairness in the process of rules are not final.

Generally, I like a well-formed outline driven debate. Spreading to the extent understandable is acceptable; however, if you talk too fast to understand I will not consider it. I hate performance debates. Tell me why you should win. Point on deficiencies in opponents arguments.

I am a math teacher and speech and debate coach at Purvis High School in Purvis, MS. Our primary focus as a team is on speech and interp events, so my experience with debate events is rudimentary.

I judge LD debate, where I would prefer that debaters not spread. I judge primarily on the flow with an emphasis on value and criterion, but I do give a higher weight to presentation than do many debate judges. I feel that debate should not just be an exercise in logic and evidence (though that is the focus), but should also reflect the reality that the way in which information is presented affects its persuasiveness.

Courtesy, clarity, and connection. Please be polite, speak to make your points or performance clear to the audience (the judges), and (in debate) explicitly articulate the connection of your evidence to your point(s).

Speech & Debate is as much an educational activity as it is a competitive activity, so my comments will be focused on what seemed to work or not work within the context of what it appeared you were trying to accomplish.

I give only a brief paradigm here because I do NOT want you to attempt to tailor your presentation to a bunch of imagined traits and preferences I may or may not possess. Run YOUR case; give YOUR performance - I will judge and comment upon the presentation's face value to the best of my ability.

tldr, in debate

• tech > truth
• content > delivery
• speed is fine, but if you're spreading, please disclose (email below)
• prog args are fine, but speakers could get docked (see below)
• tabula rasa (see below)

in-depth, in debate

• i have experience in all forms of debate
• i weigh content over delivery; but delivery is still important
• tech > truth
• email: kallen.zhou0@gmail.com
• i have a pretty high tolerance for speed (<350 wpm)
• i'm willing to buy any progressive args (Ks, theory, T, tricks) as long as they are articulated well. but if you're using them against teams that have no idea how to respond, im still willing to give you the win, but i'll dock your speaker points.
• tabula rasa - i default to competing interps, extensions are important, opponents concessions need to be mention
• i don't flow crossfire, but i'll flow a point if you mention it in a speech
• if you're extremely rude during crossfire, speaker points are gonna get docked
• general speaker points go around 28
• i'm usually flowing the entire round on paper, so if you want the flow after the round, just let me know