Experience & Education
Carrollton HS Speech & Debate '08-'12.
CHS S&D (Assistant Coach) '12-'16.
-
BS Political Science - University of West Georgia '16
Master of Public Policy - Georgia State University '20

~~~

PF: I prefer that PF stays as close to it's original intent (in terms of the use of debate theory, jargon, etc.) as possible - i.e., I should be able to judge this round as a layperson with no prior knowledge of the high school debate space. If you're going to spend a considerable amount of time between speeches calling for cards please weigh every card you've asked for.

LD: I appreciate as much of a straightforward framework and/or case debate as you can give me.

I competed for three years in VLD and BQD for Archer HS, and still compete at a collegiate level for GSU, where I major in History on a pre-law track. Resultantly, I am still familiar with Debate overall! When it comes to judging, I am a tabula rasa judge. I will disregard all previous knowledge about the resolution, and only vote on what is presented to me.
Do I have any preferences? Yes, I do.

Speed I’m okay with speed but if you talk too fast to the point that clarity diminishes, I won't be able to flow. If you’re going to talk fast, please make sure you slow down on the parts you would like to emphasize.

Argumentation

I am looking for a debate with clash, not which person can speak the best.

Due to the fact that I barely have enough experience with them, I strongly advise that you do not run any k's or theories.

Do not bring up any new arguments or ideas not made prior to the summary speech.

If your opponent(s) drop or conceded to an argument, let me know. Don’t expect me to catch every single statement made.

Please keep it civil during crossfire, and try to refrain from throwing any ad hominems. Your speaker points will be impacted.

I do not tolerate racist, sexist, and/or homophobic attacks!

Extend your arguments.

Consolidate the round and provide me with voters (reasons why you won) in your summary and final focus speeches.

Please speak clearly, concisely, and slow enough that I can understand. Supporting your claims with factual evidence is a must. Be prepared on the topic, it is apparent when you are not. Have passion which will sway my vote. Attack the other competitor's claims with reason and evidence. Tell me what arguments you have refuted and why you win the argument. Christina.Cazzola@cobbk12.org

I am a laid judge. Most decisions are made based on arguments made during the debate as well as factual evidence used during the debate. I used the framework discussed during the debate but if the frameworks opposed, I'd like to see a framework debate and reasons why I should use a particular framework in a certain debate over another. Please no spreading as I want to be able to hear your arguments plus I value weight of an argument/evidence over amount.

Shortened paradigm

Will hear Traditional, LARP, Counter-Plans, Plans, and warranted Neg Ks. Theory/T arguments lose my attention (if you have nothing to disprove their evidence, default to turns. argumentative creativity =/= abuse) but I will vote on them if I buy abuse took place. Besides T arguments, I judge on the flow using the framing mechanism that won the round. Don't read Aff Ks. Don't browbeat less experienced debaters; you should aim to win off of argumentation skill against less experienced opponents, not smoke screens or pure esoterism. 7 off against a first-year may get you the win, but it kills the educational and ethical debate space you should strive for.

Defaults

[1] Competing interps > Reasonability

[2] Tech vs Truth- See below

[3] Aff gets presumption, Neg gets permissibility

[4] RVIs are fine

[5] More than 2 Condos is excessive and errs Aff

Longer paradigm.

Speed and Email Chains- I'm very comfortable flowing <320 wpms. Above that, I will only flow args that were intelligible to me. If you plan on spreading, an email chain is expected to both me and your opponent. Your opponent is not obligated to send their case if they elect to read at clear speeds. My flow determines the round, not yours or your opponent's.

ID Pol- No ad hominem arguments will be flowed if addressed by your opponent. You may not use your opponent's race, gender, orientation, or other traits as a link into your case. I expect your identity politics to be directed towards processes occurring outside of the debate space in return for me ensuring no extremely problematic processes occur within ours.

Clash- the reason for debate. Every point your opponent makes should be either contested or mitigated. Extensions on dropped points are deadly, it is your job to cover your bases.

Tech or Truth- Don't make me choose. I will side with the flow over my intuition, but will side with fact over the flow. If you read carded analysis saying gummy bears were a root cause of WWII, that makes it on the flow. If you read a card that says MLK did not exist, that does not make it on the flow. Having cards does not alter history, but it is still the job of the debater to state that the card is false. I will call for cards; you should too.

CX- Both sides get speeches immediately after their questioning period. No excuse not to extend effective CX into them. CX is as binding as main speeches, but it is your job to address contradictions.

No new offensive args after the 1AR- The affirmative gets 4 minutes to answer a 7 minute speech. If you need to bring new arguments into your 6 minute rebuttal, you were the worse debater.

Turns- Effective turns win close rounds. Win back your turned arguments on the flow by proving that the NEG can't access the thesis or that the NEG's impact turn is bad under the framework.

I do not care about standing or sitting during speeches.

Decision- I decide winning framework before I decide who won the round. In your last speeches, make weighing arguments under the winning framework for me. I use the flow to determine who won the weighing arguments. If no weighing arguments are presented, we are defaulting to my intuition (this is bad, so make the args yourself).

RFD- I try to be as educational as possible, maybe providing suggestions on how to have better won different arguments. In addition to regular commentary, I'll try to share my flow with both debaters so you can see how an admittedly layish judge. I'll attempt to answer questions after round but if you or your coach have unaddressed concerns, email me at elijah.herring@gmail.com and I'll hope to meaningfully resolve any issues.

hey! dorien here. midtown (née grady) '22.

put me on the email chain at laurens.debate@gmail.com

any questions, please ask

quick thing abt this topic - i haven't debated on it/followed any arg evolution so assume i know little to nothing

here's some pretty basic things that matter to me:

- be nice, especially in cx. spluttering about "your cx" or shouting over another person won't get you anywhere. just be polite.

- don't make me judge a death good debate. there's a high chance that i'll straight up refuse to judge the round - if you feel like you just *have* to read that argument, strike me.

- clash is good. two ships passing in the night is not. please try to adequately respond to your opponent's arguments, & explain why your arg is good w/ context.

- line by line is great. do it w/ signposting & it'll make me very happy

- please don't abuse zoom debate for prep. i'll be lenient on crashes, etc but debate is a game that is best played when it's fair

- write my ballot for me! i'm the most indecisive person ever, but you can change that. giving me some judge instruction will go far.

- send analytics, esp theory violations. if you don't, i Will mark your speaks down (for theory violations). in general, zoom debate can be faulty and it'll help you if i can catch all of what you say. if you send all analytics from your speech, it'll help your speaks.

- evidence is good. i'll try and read cards during prep/after the debate. tell me what cards matter - if i don't think an issue has been clearly resolved in the debate, i'll resolve based on who has the better evidence. however, even if your ev is better on the question, if it wasn't impacted out in the debate i won't vote on it.

- some argument preferences: da/cp debates are fun. i love a good case debate, it's v underrated. i'm not the best for k debates, esp k affs, but i'll try my best there (still think plans are good though).

- (apparently i have to say this) if you're going for the k, make sure that you extend the link beyond the tags - i want warrants. also, you should extend an impact, and if applicable, the alt. basically, just make sure to extend the full arg, although this should apply for any off.
(the following was swiped from maddock thomas) i probably won't vote on the k if
a) you cannot explain your alt well
b) you clearly don't understand your literature and are just reading blocks.
c) you have not impacted out why the k means you win the debate - it means nothing to me if you just tell me the 'aff is securitising' in the 2nr.

finally, novice debates aren't going to affect your future; there's no pressure here. the best debates are the ones where you have fun.

put a good pun in your speech & i'll boost your speaks

for ld, bc i guess I'm judging this now:
- if you couldn't already tell, i'm a policy person which will influence how i evaluate debates, so i would also read the above

- phil/trad fwks are fine, but be sure to signpost as i'm not accustomed to flowing those kinds of speeches - i'll probably be best for larp debates

- im not super well versed in the lit of different fwks (aside from util; that's a given) so if you have cards and send them, i will most definitely be reading them (make sure they say what you want them to say)

- the way i evaluate rounds is fwk then contention level - please make sure you engage with your opponents framework, explaining why theirs is bad and why i should prefer yours. if there's no clash on the fwk, i default aff.

I teach math and serve as chair of the math dept at Isidore Newman School in New Orleans. I retired from coaching high school at the end of the 2017-2018 school year. I coached Policy and LD (as well as most every speech event) for over 25 years on the local and national circuit. In the spring of 2020, we started a Middle School team at Newman and have been coaching on the middle school level since then.

I judge only a handful of rounds each year. You will need to explain topic specific abbreviations, acronyms, etc. a little more than you would normally. You will also need to go slower than normal, especially for the first 30 sec of each speech so I can adjust to you.

Email chain: gregmalis@newmanschool.org

My philosophy is in three sections. Section 1 applies to both policy and LD. Section 2 is policy-specific. Section 3 is LD-specific.

Section 1: Policy and LD

Speed. Go fast or slow. However, debaters have a tendency to go faster than they are physically capable of going. Regardless of your chosen rate of delivery, it is imperative that you start your first speech at a considerably slower pace than your top speed will be. Judges need time to adjust to a student's pitch, inflection, accent/dialect. I won't read cards after the round to compensate for your lack of clarity, nor will I say "clearer" during your speech. In fact, I will only read cards after the round if there is actual debate on what a specific card may mean. Then, I may read THAT card to assess which debater is correct.

Theory. Theory should not be run for the sake of theory. I overhead another coach at a tournament tell his debaters to "always run theory." This viewpoint sickens me. If there is abuse, argue it. Be prepared to explain WHY your ground is being violated. What reasonable arguments can't be run because of what your opponent did? For example, an aff position that denies you disad or CP ground is only abusive if you are entitled to disad or CP ground. It becomes your burden to explain why you are so entitled. Theory should never be Plan A to win a round unless your opponent's interpretation, framework, or contention-level arguments really do leave you no alternative. I think reasonable people can determine whether the theory position has real merit or is just BS. If I think it's BS, I will give the alleged offender a lot of leeway.

Role of the Ballot. My ballot usually means nothing more than who won the game we were playing while all sitting in the same room. I don't believe I am sending a message to the debate community when I vote, nor do I believe that you are sending a message to the debate community when you speak, when you win, or when you lose. I don't believe that my ballot is a teaching tool even if there's an audience outside of the two debaters. I don't believe my ballot is endorsing a particular philosophy or possible action by some agent implied or explicitly stated in the resolution. Perhaps my ballot is endorsing your strategy if you win my ballot, so I am sending a message to you and your coach by voting for you, but that is about it. If you can persuade me otherwise, you are invited to try. However, if your language or conduct is found to be offensive, I will gladly use my ballot to send a message to you, your coach, and your teammates with a loss and/or fewer speaker points than desired.

Section 2: Policy only (although there are probably things in the LD section below that may interest you)

In general, I expect that Affs read a plan and be topical. K Affs or Performance Affs have a bit of an uphill climb for me to justify why the resolution ought not be debated. If a team chooses this approach, at minimum, they need to advocate some action that solves some problem, and their remedy/method must provide some reasonable negative ground.

I think K's need a solid link and a clear, viable, and competitive alt, but I best understand a negative strategy if consisting of counterplans, disads, case args.

Section 3: LD only (if you are an LDer who likes "policy" arguments in LD, you should read the above section}

Kritiks. In the end, whatever position you take still needs to resolve a conflict inherent (or explicitly stated) within the resolution. Aff's MUST affirm the resolution. Neg's MUST negate it. If your advocacy (personal or fiated action by some agent) does not actually advocate one side of the resolution over the other (as written by the framers), then you'll probably lose.

Topicality. I really do love a good T debate. I just don't hear many of them in LD. A debater will only win a T debate if (1) you read a definition and/or articulate an interpretation of specific words/phrases in the resolution being violated and (2) explain why your interp is better than your opponent's in terms of providing a fair limit - not too broad nor too narrow. I have a strong policy background (former policy debater and long-time policy debate coach). My view of T debates is the same for both.

Presumption. I don't presume aff or neg inherently. I presume the status quo. In some resolutions, it's clear as to who is advocating for change. In that case, I default to holding whoever advocates change in the status quo as having some burden of proof. If neither (or both) is advocating change, then presumption becomes debatable. However, I will work very hard to vote on something other than presumption since it seems like a copout. No debate is truly tied at the end of the game.

Plans vs Whole Res. I leave this up to the debaters to defend or challenge. I am more persuaded by your perspective if it has a resolutional basis. For example, the Sept/Oct 2016 topic has a plural agent, "countries" (which is rare for LD topics). Thus, identifying a single country to do the plan may be more of a topicality argument than a "theory" argument. In resolutions when the agent is more nebulous (e.g., "a just society"), then we're back to a question as what provides for a better debate.

RAP Paradigm:

Clash. Most importantly, I value clash rather than distracters or debate "theory." For all forms of debate, clash is essential; beyond initial presentation of cases, "canned" or pre-prepared speeches are unhelpful.

Evidence. I prioritize proof. Therefore, I value evidence over unsubstantiated opinion or theory, and I especially value evidence from quality sources. Be sure that (i) your evidence is from a quality source, (ii) your evidence actually says what you claim it does, and (iii) you are not omitting conditions, limitations, or contrary conclusions within your evidence.

Delivery. I debated back in the day when delivery mattered. Persuasion is still key, so if you are monotone, turn your back, or never bother with eye contact, your speaker points will likely suffer accordingly. You may speak quickly, but you must be clear, particularly with contentions. Eye contact and a well-organized, well-documented case are much appreciated. Always bear in mind that you’re trying to persuade the judge(s), not your opponent(s) or your computer, and focus accordingly.

Weighing arguments. I don’t weigh all arguments equally. You can spread if you want, but the decision will go to the team that carries the majority of the most-substantive issues with greater impacts. I appreciate policy arguments (vs. theory), especially if they relate to law (e.g., the Constitution), economics, international trade (e.g., the WTO), international relations (e.g., the UN or international law), or government policy.

Organization. This is essential. Off-time roadmaps are okay. I try to flow carefully. Please structure your case with numbered/lettered points and sub-points. When refuting arguments, please cross-refer to your opponent(s) case structure (preferably by number/letter) and be very organized for me to keep track.

Resolutions. Please debate the resolutions. Thought has gone into these and their specific wording. Regardless of the form of debate, I prefer that students debate the resolution, and I am not a fan of “Kritiks,” “Alts,” or the like. Whatever the rubric or euphemism, if they relate specifically to the topic, okay, but if they are generic or primarily distractive, I may disregard them. In any event, they are no excuse for failing to deal with the current resolution, for failing to clash with the other side’s specific arguments, or for failing to organize your own points with a clear structure.

Ridiculous rulemaking. Please spare me any “observation” or “framework” that attempts to narrow the resolution or to impose all of the burden on your opponent(s) (e.g., “Unless the other side carries every issue, I win the debate”).

Other pet peeves. These include: not standing during speeches, answering for your partner, claiming that you proved something without reading evidence, claiming evidence says something it doesn’t, rudeness, speaking faster than you can organize thoughts, failing to clash, forgetting that debate is ultimately about persuasion, debating during prep time, etc. Avoid hyperbole: not every issue leads to “global thermonuclear war”.

Feedback. Some students find my feedback very helpful. Even if you don’t, it’s not a time for arguing against the decision or for being disrespectful, which is counterproductive with me.

My background. I was a Policy debater who also competed in Congress, Extemp, and OO. I’ve coached PF. I am an international business attorney and former law school professor, with a background in Economics and experience working on Capitol Hill. I also teach and tutor ELA, History, and SAT (Reading/Writing); words matter.

The above thoughts apply to all forms of debate. I judge a fair amount, primarily PF and L-D. Below are some thoughts specific to those types of debate:

PF—

--I prefer line-by-line refutation. I am not a fan of dropping or conceding arguments. I do not appreciate attempts to reduce the debate to “voters,” ignoring other arguments. This is particularly inappropriate when done during your side’s first two-minute speech.

--No “scripted” speeches after the initial presentations of cases. Clash is key.

--Framework is optional, not essential. It may not be used to narrow the resolution.

--Even though you are not required to present a plan, that can’t be used as a knee-jerk response to all arguments or questions concerning Solvency or Topicality.

--Remember that “There is no presumption or burden of proof in Public Forum Debate”.

L-D—

--I am not a fan of abstract philosophy. Any philosophical presentation must be tied specifically to the resolution and not presented in a generic vacuum.

--I don’t necessarily weigh framework over contentions.

--Your value and criterion should work with your contentions. Ideally, in discussing the relative merits of each side’s framework, explain specifically why your choice is more relevant rather than relying on a circular “chicken and egg” analysis (e.g., “My value comes before her value”).

Call me "jsp" or "Josh"

joshuasp.debate@gmail.com - yes put me on the chain, i want an email chain set up before each rounds start time

Recent Coaching/Debating Affiliations: Ivy Bridge Academy, Georgia State University, Thomas Kelly College Prep

Bottom line: I am a 3rd year out debater doing policy, I did 4 years of LD in high school and I have been coaching PF at Ivy Bridge Academy. I can follow technical debating and jargon from across those 3 events so just you do you - I have coached/debated/judged/voted on tricks, theory, kritiks, plan, phil, trad and lay (insert whatever non-descriptive 1 word shorthand you like). Whatever you are doing will likely not be new to me in all honesty. Some people call me a tabula rasa judge even though I think the phrase tabula rasa is a conservative debate dogwhistle (I spend a lot of my time thinking about why we do what we do in debate, I think this makes me decent at judging method debates).

---

Quick Prefs:

1 - K, Plans, Case Debate, Lay, T/T-FW

2 - DA's/CP's, Theory, Narratives

3 - Phil

4 - Tricks

Strike - Out of round violations, frivolous arguments

---

Translation for PF Debaters: this means I am a "tech judge". Speed is fine and prog is cool. Just don't be a jerk, be a sensible person.

---

I have given myself 5 things to say about how I evaluate debates, no more, no less:

1. I need pen time, i flow on paper and by ear

2. I will not vote for arguments that had no warrant/signaling. Such as ur fiat K's that ngl was not even in the block

3. It must have been in your final speech for me to vote for you on it (including extending case vs T)

4. I evaluate impact level first usually unless told otherwise (whether its education or nuke war, etc)

5. My ballot will likely be determined off who i have to do the least work for, i do not usually vote on presumption

---

Evidence shenanigans:

this is the only stuff that will change how I vote directly, everything else is flexible.

Put me on the email chain, i do like to read evidence because no one compares the evidence themselves. I prefer ev to be send before speeches and in cut cards. Your speaks are capped below 29.5 if there is no doc and below 28 if when you send evidence there is not evidence in cut card format. Paraphrasing is fine if you have cut cards to go along with it AND you send them out BEFORE. I make exceptions to this if you are part of a small program which has no way knowing how to cut cards and this is in novice.

If you send your case as a google doc, copying perms needs to be on. This is because I need to create a stable copy of your evidence, anything that you can edit without sending a new doc risks being problematic (ie changing highlighting mid round or adding ev and claiming to have read it). Strike me if how I deal with ev ethics is a problem.

---

How I vote

I will only vote on what was in the final speech and what is implicated to be in the final speech as the reason to vote for you. That is the only hard line I draw. (this includes you must extend case against a 2nr on T). Every form of debate is full of brain rot and I genuinely care about voting for people who are capable of thinking of why they do the norms they partake, not only does it make you a better debater but also a better person. Idc what it is or how it got there, just get to the finish line. Any arg is a voting issue if made to be that way. I only vote on complete arguments. Stock args are very strategic in front of me because I am not better for random arguments but for good arguments you can defend well. The frontlines and weighing wins you the round, not the constructive.

---

Speaker Points

Be clear, pen time gets speaker points.

Strategic collapses that make my life easier are appreciated

Clear signalling/signposting helps

+.2 speaker points for gender minorities