Hi!

I'm a senior at Vestavia Hills in my fourth year of LD!

My email is bradyrm18@gmail.com. I don't expect you to send your case to me at novice tourneys, but feel free to email me if you have any questions or concerns!

For novice

Tech > Truth - I'm willing to vote on arguments that may not necessarily be true if they are warranted well.

Framing - Framework is extremely important, and I would like to see a lot of clash here. Try to bring it up and weigh your framework against your opponent's in every speech - especially the last one!

Evidence - Please give me the warrant behind the argument, not just the card. Make sure you have the cards ready to produce in case your opponent asks for them. If your opponent points out mis-cutting or flaws in evidence, I'll call for them at the end of round, so make sure they can be emailed to me.

Offense - I love Impact calc. Weigh your impacts! Prove why they should be acted upon and why it should be under your framework. Even if you have amazing defense but very little offense it will be hard for you to win the round.

General - Signpost! Please tell me where you are in the flow. For example, when making a new argument, tell me what contention it applies too, don't just read a bunch of cards and expect me to know where they go. Bring up arguments from cross in your next speech for them to be flowed. Point out concessions or anything that was not responded to and tell me to extend them across the flow. Please crystalize and give voters in your last speech!

Speaks - Debate how you debate best - I'm not super picky. Good speaks meant you spoke clearly, used time wisely, articulated well, always remained polite and respectful, and never said anything offensive or unethical (penalized by down vote and minimal speaks for this). Jokes and puns are welcome! Remember an L isn't the end of the world and remain confident!

Good luck and have have fun!

I am a varsity member of LD debate and I've done both middle and high school level debate.

I appreciate roadmaps before each speech (except 1AC)

I expect to see framework debate since that is a fundamental part of LD

I am not a fan of spreading, so share your case if you are going to do that. I'm okay with speed, but I need to be able to understand you.

Signposting is very important during rebuttals.

Voters help me weigh the round.

Most importantly, keep the debate clean. At the end of the day, debate is meant to encourage critical thinking and improve real-life skills. Let's do our best and have fun whilst in the round.

If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask me. I am more than happy to answer them. Looking forward to seeing you guys do an amazing job!

SOOOOOOO TRAD.

Hi! I'm Tristan and I've competed in Lincoln Douglas and congress at MA for three years and will compete this 2021-22 year in both.

My email is lunaphin62@gmail.com

General Thoughts

I do not care what you run. I personally debated everything from k's to larp to theory so I have experience running and judging most everything.

However, please limit the high theory. I'll evaluate it regardless but trust me, that will not be enjoyable for me or your opponent.

Additionally, regardless of what you say during the round I will immediately drop you if you say something racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. As Spongebob once said, "don't be a jerk."

I'm tech over truth so idc about information outside the round, so if you don't say something in the round, it doesn't affect my decision.

Spreading is fine but please be clear, if I don't understand I'll say clear and if you don't become clear after three clears I'll stop flowing.

Always share cases, it makes sure the round doesn't turn into straw mans and helps every debater keep up regardless of skill.

If you're running something crazy then please let me know before the round and for the love of god tell your opponent. If they are not prepared for what you're running then I will not hesitate to drop you. No one should be excluded from the debate space.

Random Thoughts

Don't call me judge or sir, it's weird.

You don't have to read the resolution at the beginning of the round, I'll know the resolution and you can go straight into case.

Keep your own speech time please.

Please disclose prior to the round if you're running crazy stuff. If you're running trad stuff no need to disclose.

I try not to let my bias influence the round. I'm a high schooler and I pick the winner of the round. I have no position for you to appeal to so just debate the way you want.

Every framework is the same between vcs, robs, and rojs. Just because you use different names doesn't mean they're different layers, they're all ways in which I evaluate the round, always clash on framework no matter the name.

im not one of those people who gets triggered if ur chill in the round. ill give u higher speaks if ur funny

You better know your case. No matter how crappy you think your case is if I can tell it's one you wrote or put time into and your opponent didn't I'll feel no inclination not to vote down the person who stole cases or didn't put effort into their prep.

RVIs are cool.

I'm tech so I don't assume anything, you need proper warranting no matter how common sense of an argument you think it is.

Don't worry about gotcha questions in cx because one if you don't bring it up in a speech I won't evaluate it and two it makes you seem like a jerk if done in the wrong way.

CX is for questions, prep time is for prep, that's how debate is structured.

In any case, it's your round so you control where the debate goes, I'm just along for the ride. You do you, run whatever, and most of all have fun. Debate is most of all to have fun so that is the primary goal of the round. If you have any other questions please bring them up before the round and I'll be happy to clarify.

Trigger Warnings

If your opponent has trigger warnings on their profile and you ignore them I will drop you immediately and no further debate will be necessary.

If your trigger warnings are not posted on your profile or otherwise communicated to your opponent then you will not be given such leeway.

May the odds be ever in your favor.

wells.finch1020@gmail.com

Experience- Debating LD, PF, and CX for five years with a little bit of congress and IEs sprinkled in (at Mountain Brook)

I don't judge often but I know what I'm doing

Ask me questions after the round bc you likely won't see me again

Progressive stuff-idc just know what you're doing

Tech>truth (you still need decent warrants)

DONT READ A PARAPHRASED CASE

give an off time road map, like neg aff, not I'm going to start on my opponents C1 and refute this and that and then go to their C2 and do that and this. That's too long, I'll give low speaks for that

Sign post-if I don't know where you are, I can't flow what your saying

I'll time you but I'm not going to cut you off. I stop flowing after about ten seconds, but you can talk for as long as you feel like, it'll just be a waste of our time.

be nice

Cross- If it isn't brought up later in round I won't evaluate it (be nice)

Read a case with cut cards

Speed is fine but I flow the speech so if I can’t understand you I’ll just stop flowing

Give me weighing

Clash is super important

Feel free to text me if you have questions after round or if you think that I should know something before the round.

(205)-517-3521

Ask me anything beforehand if you are confused or have any other questions

If you say anything sexist, homophobic, racist, transphobic, etc I'll drop you with a 0

Hey y'all!

My name is Kashvi. I'm a Varsity LD debater at Hoover High, and this is my fourth year debating.

Here are a couple things to think about for this round:

* I am a completely blank slate. I will make my decision based only on the information that you provide. Even if your opponent says something utterly ridiculous, I am still going to flow it unless you argue against it.

* I'm not a fan of spreading but you won't lose points if I can understand you (add me to the email chain if you spread ~ 07kashvig@gmail.com)

* I don't flow cross-ex, so if you have something you want me to flow, you need to bring it up in one of your cases.

* Be sure to signpost and provide offtime roadmaps. This is not something that you will lose points for, but it will help me follow your cases much better.

* Try to fill as much of your speech time as possible. Avoid ending your speech without arguing all of your opponents points.

* Provide voters. Give me reasons to side with you.

The main thing that I want you guys to remember is to TRY YOUR BEST AND ALWAYS HAVE FUN!!

Be chill. Don’t be extra. Do your best and have fun.

Ask specific questions prior to round.

Experience:

Mountain Brook High School Debate (2003-2007)

Mountain Brook Lincoln/Douglass & Policy Debater (2003-2006)

Mountain Brook Public Forum Debater (2006-2007)

As a judge, I want to see debaters that:

Collapse: No one wants to evaluate 100 different arguments at the end of the round. In your closing, pick the arguments that carry the most weight and tell me why you won them.

Weigh Arguments: Tell me what arguments matter the most and why they do. Do this early, and do this often.

Speak Clearly: I don't have a hard limit on speed, but this isn't Policy. If I can't follow, I will say the word "clear" to help you get to where I can flow your round properly. I will not deduct points for calling out "clear," but if I can't follow your argument that can obviously have an impact on the ballot.

Signpost: Before time starts, give us an idea of where you'll be going during your argument. It doesn't have to be all-encompassing or set in stone, but a general idea is very helpful.

Show Respect: Be respectful, not only to me but to your opponent as well. This begins before the first argument goes out, we're here to develop and enjoy ourselves- don't ruin it by being hateful.

Miscellaneous:

Dates: Dates matter with evidence. The first time you use a piece of evidence, drop the date in there for everyone's benefit. If your opponent uses a piece of evidence and doesn't say the date, don't be afraid to ask for it.

Prepare: Be prepared and ready to go. Use the bathroom, preflow, and do whatever else you need to before I get there!

CX: I'm willing to go a little over time in order to allow for an answer. For example: If Aff asks Neg a question with 3 seconds left, I'll allow Neg to give an answer before we call it.

Kritik/Counterplan/Theory: Please do it well if you are going to run it. It is always uncomfortable when someone runs a shell argument that they don't really understand and then falls apart halfway through!

If you need me to clarify any of these paradigms and preferences, or you have a question that I have not addressed, please ask; I want you to know what to expect and feel comfortable going into the round!

Any Questions, feel free to email me- Hayslip@gmail.com

Currently a junior at Montgomery Academy.

add me to the chain: charlie_hill@montgomeryacademy.org

Note for the Hoover Novice Tournament:

Traditional debates are won almost entirely on weighing. Weigh the framework properly, and implicate magnitude, probability, and time frame for Contention level arguments. +0.1 speaker point if you use magnitude, probability, or timeframe correctly. 

pref: LARP > K = Performance > Theory = Trad > Phil > Tricks = Friv Theory = High Phil

tech>truth. the weirder the argument the lower the threshold for answers.

Speed's fine. Go as fast as you want but slow down on any analytics that are not in the doc. I'll say clear if you're too fast.

1) K debates - do it. I'm not familiar with niche literature but if you explain it well I'll vote on it. Pls have a clear ballot story.

2) Topicality - I love T. I evaluate the T flow before I evaluate anything else. I lean towards reasonability on T since there isn't an objective limit on the topic -> language is arbitrary.

3) Theory - I default to competing interps, no RVI's, DTD on shells against entire advocacy, drop the argument for everything else.

4) Disads - read them. Not a huge fan of 2 card DA's with UQ and an internal link in the same card but I'll still vote for it. I have a pretty high threshold for PTX DA's because I think they are especially egregious.

5) CP's - yes. default to 1-2 condo good unless convinced otherwise. PIC's probably fine if you can handle the perm debate.

6) Trad - I have no problem with Trad it just bores me. I don't think values have almost any function in debate so please don't spend a minute and a half on morality vs. justice. I need clear weighing and value criterion clash and probably err on the side of over-explanation in traditional debates.

7) Tricks - I don't like tricks, but I don't know why judges absolutely despise them since they literally make judging easier. I'll vote on tricks but blippy responses are fine. If you read tricks against a novice speaks will be trashed.

hi, i'm graham. i competed at vestavia hills for two years, acquiring two bids and qualifying to the toc my senior year.

BERK EDIT:i haven’t really thought about or heard debate in a while. slow down (especially on analytics) and maybe even over explain.

add me on the chain- ingegrahamjohnstone@gmail.com

tldr: read anything. the pref chain is just indicative of what i read as a debater/how comfortable i am with each style. argumentative dogmatism is bad! i also heavily align ideologically to my former coach sira ahuja, whom i will quote multiple times in this paradigm.

pref chain:

k - 1

policy - 1/2

theory - 2/3

tricks - 3

normative phil - 4/5

disclaimer

i do have very slight hearing issues so i will sometimes corroborate my flow with the doc. however, that also means that you should slow down and clear off the doc (which you should have been doing anyways). if i don't catch something, i'll be upfront about it if applicable.

miscellaneous thoughts

- i like to read evidence (especially in policy rounds) - if you read good, warranted evidence and follow it up with contextual, explanatory analysis that makes it to where i have to do less reading, your speaks will be rewarded tremendously.

- lean neg on process and condo and some actor, lean aff on multi-actor, international, etc.

- (in the context of policy) big fan of new 2nr evidence - but will limit it to 4-5 cards at max.

- with regards to t-framework, i actually really love framework debates. despite reading mainly k affs in high school, i have been on both sides of the debate many times and am as neutral as can be. that being said, k 1ars against framework with little-to-no clarity regarding the affirmatives model of debate/the role of the negative will lose in front of me.

- in terms of k literature, most familiar with ir k's (namely grove), baudrillard, set col, psychoanalysis, cap (mainly beller), and queerpess. i never encountered afropess as a debater, but i did read some of warren, wilderson, and gillespies' works.

- i love creative arguments regardless of which style of debate they're categorized as. things like clash royale theory, the 21 savage kritik, the rider disadvantage, and alien wipeout ( thanks anshul) are things i enjoy very much. creativity/interesting strategy will be rewarded with better speaks if executed well!!! (this does not mean spamming random 1ar shells and throwing every other flow.)

things i don't like / will refuse to evaluate:

- do not commit one of the isms

- reading an argument that violates a pre-stated accommodation.

- very high threshold for disclosure against novices and / or small school trad debaters (anything else is fair game tho, i just think disclosure against those who don't know how to disclose / know what it is should be taught out of round.)

if you do any of these things (except maybe disclosure), expect a 25

speaker points:

i'll disclose them if you ask. it feels like debaters are getting less and less clear every year so if you speak well you will be greatly rewarded.

1) I only flow what is said in the round. If a card is wrong, it is your job to call it out. I only judge based on my flow sheet that is why it important that you say everything you need to say.

I don't flow cross-ex, so if you think that I should flow the things mentioned in cross-ex, make sure you include it during your speeches. Ex) "During Cross-ex, my opponent said this...."

2) Speed: I can flow speed, but I have my limits, so proceed at your own risk. If you feel it absolutely necessary to spread, I will do my best to keep up with the caveat that you are responsible for what I miss (but what I miss, I won't flow). I appreciate folks that value delivery. Take that as you will. If you're going to go fast, you can email me your case (eshika0707@gmail.com).

3) Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD! Thus, please signpost. Also, do an Offtime roadmap, so I know where you're going.

4) You have an absolute obligation to articulate your arguments. Even if I’m familiar with the literature or whatever that you might be referencing I *try* to avoid filling in any gaps.

5) I'm pretty "traditional", but I am working to be more comfortable with progressive arguments. However, I'll vote on many types of arguments (Plans, Counterplans, Ks, Aff Ks, and theory if there is legitimate abuse). However, the more progressive the argument and the further away from the topic, the more in depth and slower your explanation needs to be. Don't make any assumptions about what I'm supposed to know.

6) Debates that don't do any weighing are hard to judge. Be clear about what you think should be on my ballot if you're winning the round.

Hi, I'm Molly Norris. I debated for Auburn High School during my junior and senior years. I have the most experience with LD and some with PF and Congress. I will only deduct speaker points if someone is blatantly disrespectful. Besides that, I'm excited to hear your arguments!

Hey! I'm Snekha. I am currently a Freshman at UAB. I served as Captain of the VHHS LD Debate Team my senior year!

Pronouns are she/her.

Email --- snekharaj.nkl@gmail.com

Please include me in the email chain. Also, feel free to email me if you have questions before the round!

General

Tech > Truth - I'm willing to vote on arguments that may not necessarily be true if they are warranted well.

Speak clearly and engage with your opponent's arguments. Tell me why I should vote for you.

Framework

Be sure to explain what your framework is, and how I should evaluate it. Framework comes before contentions, so if you have different frameworks, please debate about it.

Disads

I find a lot of disads really improbable. If you want to convince me that something leads to extinction, you’d better have a solid link chain.

Other

I will pay attention during cross-ex, but if something important is said, make sure to say it in one of your speeches too.

Please be nice to everyone, and have fun!!

Hello! My name is Davis Shedd. I go by whatever pronouns. I debated all 4 years of High School, reading primarily the K. My favorite K's to read and the K's I'm most familiar with are Cap, Queer Theory, Set Col, some pomo, and Deleuze. However, I am familar with a lot of critical literature so feel free to read whatever you want. I feel like doing more on the about me section is stupid and isn't useful information, but if you want to know anything else in particular feel free to email me and ask or just check the wiki or tab or sum :)

email: davis.shedd@duke.edu

(put me on email chain if thats what u are doing. in online debate ive seen ppl using file share. if u want to do that thats fine with me)

feel free to contact me with any questions!

Quick Pref:

tech > truth

K: 1

Theory: 2

Phil/Tricks: 3

Larp: 4

I will vote on literally anything at all as long as it has a link, warrant, and impact and is clearly articulated and contexualized within the round. I will not however, vote on blatantly harmful arguments that are racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. If you read these in front of me, I will immediately drop you. Similarly, if you say anything harmful in round to either your opponent or myself, I will give you an L0. Speed is totally fine with me, just make sure your opponent is okay with speed and make sure the space is safe for them. Spreading super fast at your opponent and not making any arguments simply because they wont be able to keep up and catch everything is dumb, harmful, and is not a good look for you. If you do this, I will tank your speaks. Read whatever you want - debate well and I will vote for you. It's just a debate round - have fun with it, do your thing, and chill.

Hi! I'm Manish (he/him).

Debate experience in Policy and LD

Email for questions/email chain: mychili005@gmail.com

If you have any more questions about anything specific not stated here or for clarification, please ask me before round.

*For Prefs Read Further Down

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ria Shah Novice Tournament:

This is a novice tournament so I will default to traditional debate. Personally, I am fine with running a progressive argument, but for the sake of this tournament being a learning opportunity, I would rather you stick to the traditional arguments.

Just because you run a progressive argument does not mean you win the round automatically. I still expect that you run the argument well. I may dock your speaks if it is sloppy.

If you are on the receiving end of a progressive argument, don't get discouraged. Try your best because, at tournaments like these, there is a chance that your opponent probably does not know what they are doing either. That means I might vote for you just because the work on the argument was sloppy/messy and it did not make any sense.

This is a novice tournament and so your main goal is to get experience and feedback so that you can improve for the future. Sure winning is awesome and if you win kudos to you and congratulations, but the losses are also just as important to having a successful debate career.

Please do not come into the round thinking I know everything you are talking about. Please explain your arguments and why you won as if I know nothing about the topic.

In the end, make sure to have fun and always try your best! It is okay to slip, stutter, or forget something. Debate is a growth activity. You get better over time with practice and experience. Just come into round excited and to have fun. The judges are not here to scrutinize you. We are here to help and answer any questions you have.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Prefs:

I do not have a preference for traditional or progressive (scroll down for progressive prefs).

Do not be offensive and do not be racist, homophobic, xenophobic, transphobic etc. or I will vote you down and dock your speaks. Be respectful of everyone's identity, especially pronouns. I expect that you have an overall good presence in the round.

Provide trigger warnings if you will talk about sensitive topics.

Specifics:

1) Tech > Truth - but do not say they dropped the argument and move on. Explain why the concession is important and what does it mean for you and the round. Please do question recency of evidence and author quals because those can also disprove an argument effectively, but please explain why your evidence is better in that matter.

2) Framework - Util is Trutil but I will listen to any framework, so you may have to do a little more work to show that your impacts outweigh. Remember that framework comes first! Framework is the lens through which I evaluate the arguments/impacts made in the round.

Make sure not to spend too much time on framework in rebuttals. Just do enough work so that you get your point across and you answer your opponent's claims effectively and efficiently.

Explain why I should vote for your framework and not your opponent's. Tie your impacts back to the framework and weigh too.

3) Spreading - I am fine with speed, but please send out a speech doc. Please slow down on tags and authors. Please slow down a little, emphasize, and be clear on analytical arguments. For novice tournaments, I am fine with faster than conversational speed, but it's a good idea to not spread.

4) Flow - The being said about spreading, if it is not on my flow, I will not consider it and it is as if it was never said. Extend through the rebuttals if you want me to evaluate it.

5) CX - I will not flow cross, but bring up anything from cross if you want me to flow it in your speech. Please be respectful during cross.

6) Weighing -Please do it! It makes it easier on me to determine who won. I am also a big fan of Impact calc. It helps me weigh the round. Magnitude, Time-Frame, and Probability are your best bet with me as your judge.

7) Time - I can keep time but I expect you to keep your own time.

8) Signpost and Off-time roadmaps - Great for keeping the speech organized and makes flowing easier. Try to stick with the roadmap you give. Do not go back and forth between flows, it is harder to flow and I will tend to miss arguments that you make.

9)Rebuttals - I would like to see you do some analysis during rebuttals i.e. don't rely heavily on just using cards for rebuttals. Use your critical thinking skills and make analytics. Also, restating the card will not get you anywhere. Explain how it interacts with your opponent's arguments, what the purpose is, and what does it mean for you when you give voters.

10) Speaks - Speaks depend on your demeanor in round and how well you articulated your arguments.

I will give you +0.5 speaks if you reference something relevant from pop culture in your speech. +1.0 for anything chemistry or biology related.

Don't just make a generic reference or state it at the end of a speech (like I love this *specific song* or *specific actor*). It needs to be entwined in your speech somewhere and it makes sense within the context of your speech. Same goes for the chemistry or biology reference.

But don't waste your time on this too much. I would rather you focus on the arguments presented than trying to get those extra points. I usually give pretty high speaks unless there is a reason for me not to.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Progressive Args:

I would not encourage running these args at novice tournaments, but whatever floats your boat.

1) K's- I just started getting into the literature, but that does not mean I know everything and that I understand what you are talking about. Although, I do enjoy a good K debate.

If you do run a K, make sure to CLEARLY explain your arguments thoroughly and why you win the round.

I lean Aff on framework, so neg will have to explain well why I should vote for the neg's framework. Explain how the Aff links and how the perms do not solve. Also, explain the alt well and how it solves too.

You can run a K Aff, but I'm probably not the best judge for that. I lean neg on T-Framework, so Aff will have to clearly answer T-FW well.

2) CP's - I am a big fan of these. Just make sure you have a plan-text if running a CP. I think they are fair, but Aff can certainly run theory, especially when there is in-round abuse. State and explain the net benefit to the CP and answer the perms.

3) DA's - I love these. They're one of my favorites to run on neg. Make sure you explain the uniqueness and the link and the impact well. Tie it back to the framework and weigh.

4) LARP - Aff's can have plan-text but they don't have to, but Aff's have to defend the resolution.

5) Theory - If you do run theory, just be aware I have a little trouble judging theory so you may have to do some work on explaining it. I have gotten a bit better at it, but just make sure you do adequate work on it. Same goes for T. If you run ASPEC without asking in CX, I will not consider it.

6) Tricks - I think they're dumb and won't acknowledge them.

7) Phil - Keep in mind I have little to no experience with Phil debates. Remember, I am open to anything, but please explain your arguments well.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

If you have any more questions about anything specific not stated here or for clarification, please ask me before the round starts.

Also, please ask me any questions you have after the round/tournament.

I look forward to seeing some amazing debates! Good Luck!

This is my fourth year debating Lincoln Douglas debate at VHHS.

Add me on the chain - dylun05@gmail.com

Tech > Truth. If it's well warranted out with credible and correctly cut evidence, I will evaluate it. I can handle some speed but if it's too fast send me the speech doc.

K- I'm not really experienced with these. I will evaluate them though, but really don't like them. 

Larp/Theory - I can handle basically everything here.  

Tricks- Don't really like them.

Phil - Pretty Trad. Ran the more common frameworks like Util, structural violence, and Kant for most of my cases. I can evaluate most other frameworks though, especially if it's well explained. 

Make sure to link your case back to the framework and weigh!

Don't be rude and have fun.

Please time your own speeches and give an off-time roadmap before the round.