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 am the Coach at Carrollton High School, Carrollton, GA. I have been coaching for a number of years. I have coached policy, LD, and PF debate.

I expect debaters to weigh arguments, if you don’t then I'm going to weigh them and you probably won't like that. I like warrants in case. If they provide a warrant and your only response is "they don't have evidence for this" but it logically makes sense, I'm likely to give them some ground on it. Tell me why your response matters and delinks their case. Speed is okay as long as you speak clearly. Arguments that you want me to vote “off of” should be extended through summary and final focus. I don't flow crossfire. If it's important, say it in a speech. I think that debate should be about integrity and truth, meaning be aware of the language you use and the validity of your evidence. There is no place in debate for misconstruing and/or using fake evidence. The flow is important for me in making a decision. If an argument is to be evaluated it should be cleanly extended through the debate. I hate voting on arguments that were not well developed. The debate should not be about blindly reading cards without understanding them. I'm unlikely to vote on theory unless there's an actual violation in the round. Contextual analysis is always good.

Hey I'm Santino, I currently attend Carrollton High School and have been debating mainly PF since sophomore year. As a senior, I debate Varsity PF more frequently than anything else but I have some experience with speech and LD formats.

When it comes to judging I tend to favor the speakers/debaters that show actual argumentative skills in a round. If you present an argument in constructive and then just rattle off the same info in every speech without front-lining or meaningful clash; I will vote you down. There needs to be heavy analysis from both sides when forming arguments so that the debate can really show some thought and meaningful clash. Additionally if you are calling for every opponent card in a round I will decide my vote before the round even ends; Do not do this. Constantly calling for cards is abusive and makes the round miserable for not only the other team, but for me as well. If two cards tell the complete opposite thing, or if the card just sounds completely false; I will use round time and ask both teams to put that specific evidence in the chat.

A good debater should engage their opponent in a smart way, it is natural to be passionate about your argument and it is meaningful to me when I see you putting emotion into a speech. Just remember the thin line between assertion and aggression; if you are meaningfully assertive during a round it can be powerful, but if you are aggressive to the point of essentially calling your opponents idiots, constantly cutting them off, or just generally being disrespectful I will tank speaker points.

I do not care about spreading at all, I have the ability to listen and write down everything you say, it is all about how clear and concise you are when you speak. If you spread, but stumble on every other word, slow it down, it's better to be clear than fast.

Extend, Extend, Extend. It is very important in a round that you extend information from the very first speech, I should be able to see your argument points in every single section on my workspace, as well as draw clear lines through.

Finally just make sure you impact everything out so I have something to vote on in the end, you could have the most powerful argument and support it fully but without impacts; timeframe, probability, empirics, your argument has no weight. Extend impacts to the very last speech.

One last thing is that I completely understand the online situation for all debaters. I miss in-person debate as much as all of you guys; so I am sympathetic to you all. I know there are difficulties with internet connections, microphones, and cameras, we will work through all of the kinks in-round and sort it all out so that we can get as close to in-person as possible.

Have fun everyone and keep debating because there is always more to learn.

If you're running an email chain, please add me: Andrewgollner@gmail.com

he/him

About me: I debated one year of PF and three years of policy at Sequoyah High, and I debated three year of college policy at the University of Georgia. I was a 2N that generally runs policy offcase positions but, especially earlier in my debate career, I ran many critical positions. I'll try to be expressive during the round so that you can discern how I am receiving your arguments.

Judge Preferences: On a personal level, please be kind to your opponents. I dislike it when a team is unnecessarily rude or unsportsmanlike. I am completely willing to discuss my decision about a round in between rounds, so please ask me if you want me to clarify my decision or would like advice. You can email me any questions you have.

FOR PF/LD:

I am primarily a policy judge. This means

1. I am more comfortable with a faster pace. While I don't like the idea of spreading in PF and LD I can handle a faster pace.

2. I am decently technical. If an argument is dropped point it out, make sure I can draw a clean line through your speeches.

3. I am less used to theory backgrounds in your form of debate, slow down and explain these.

4. Ask me any specific questions you have.

FOR POLICY:

I recognize that my role is to serve as a neutral arbiter without predispositions towards certain arguments, but as this goal is elusive the following are my gut reactions to positions. I strive to ensure that any position (within reason, obviously not obscene or offensive) is a possible path to victory in front of myself.

CP: I love a well written CP which is tailored to your opponent's solvency advocate and that can be clearly explained and is substantiated by credible evidence. If your CP is supported by 1AC solvency evidence, I will be very impressed. Generic CPs are fine, I've read a ton of them, but the more you can at least explain your CP in the context of the affirmative's advantages the more likely you are to solve for their impact scenarios.

DA: Make sure to give a quick overview of the story during the neg block to clarify the intricacies of your position. If, instead of vaguely tagline making a turns case arg like "climate turns econ, resource shortages", you either read and later extend a piece of evidence or spend 10 to 15 seconds analytically creating a story of how climate change exasperates resource shortages and causes mass migrations which strain nation's financial systems, then I will lend far more risk to the disadvantage turning the case. Obviously the same goes for Aff turns the DA. I will also weigh smart analytical arguments on the disad if the negative fails to contest it properly. I'm also very persuaded when teams contest the warrants of their opponents evidence or point out flaws within their opponents evidence, whether it's a hidden contradiction or an unqualified author.

T: I've rarely gone for topicality but I have become increasingly cognizant of incidents in which I likely should have. My gut reaction is that competing interpretations can be a race to the bottom, but I have personally seen many affirmatives which stray far enough from the topic to warrant a debate centered over the resolution in that instance.

K: I used to run Ks pretty frequently in high school but I run them far less frequently now. I'm likely not deep in your literature base so be sure to explain your position and your link story clearly.

FW: My gut feeling is that debate is a game and that it should be fair, but I have seen many rounds where the affirmative team has done an excellent job of comparing the pedagogy of both models and won that their model is key for X type of education or accessibility there of. However, I am persuaded that a TVA only needs to provide reasonable inroads to the affirmatives research without necessarily having to actually solve for all of the affirmative. I do find the response that negs would only read DAs and ignore/"outweigh" the case to be effective - try to add some nuance to this question of why negs would or wouldn't still need to grapple with the case.

Non-traditional Aff: I've always run affs with USFG plan texts, but that doesn't mean that these positions are non-starters. I will be much more receptive to your affirmative if it is intricately tied to the topic area, even if it does refuse to engage the resolution itself for whichever reasons you provide.

Theory: I generally think 2 condo is good, more than that and things start to get a bit iffy.

Most importantly, please be kind to your opponents and have a good time.

I am a 2nd year at Georgia Tech (Go Yackets!) studying civil engineering and sustainability. I debated VPF for three years in both the Georgia and National circuits and was part of the State Championship team while at Carrollton (2021 & 2022).

I prefer for the teams to share all cases and called evidence into one email chain started before the round. email: andrew.herndon17@gmail.com

Timing- I will time and expect you to do the same

Speed- No spreading no problem

Ev- I view debate as an essential activity for developing skillsets and tools to find the truth, simply don't lie intentionally or otherwise. Your evidence should be reputable, reasonable, relevant, and most importantly: extended. That is obvious. However, If it is bad evidence, it is still up to your opponent to prove that to me. I am a tech judge, and the "game" of debate is won by extending winning arguments and strategically dismantling your opponents' shakiest evidence.

CX- Debate IS clash; I do flow CX out of interest but all arguments and responses should be briefly reiterated your in speeches.

Collapsing - Extend the most contentions you can into the later rounds, I allow lots of collapsing but (hopefully) you wrote multiple contentions to argue them, not to cut potential losses in the round.

Theory- I have a pretty solid threshold for theory and have some competitive experience with it. I don’t think that a formal counterinterp is necessary to respond to a shell, just give responses like you would a normal argument. If it's frivolous and the opposing team indicts that, I will drop you and play Tetris on my laptop. Yes, FW and Ks can be harmful to you, teams that are abusive with the them to make a debate about a non-resolutional (non-resolvable) issue are not likely to get voted up. But, you can run them if they stay within the broader themes of your contentions.

Weighing- As early as possible. This said, weighing should not just be "we outweigh on magnitude/probability/scope/whatever other debate jargon you throw at me". Give me analyses as to why you're winning the round, which should be adequate.

Frontline- 2nd Rebuttal onwards. Nothing new should be read 2nd summary onward.

Signposting- Good debaters are good at signposting.

Comedy- The best debaters are able to make it fun... and get higher speaks

I am a TECH judge. If it's not on the flow I won't take it into consideration. Make your arguments and nuances explicit and tell me throughout the entire round, doubly so for prime links and accessed impacts.

Best of luck

Congressional Debate:

I have judged and/or been parliamentarian at local, regional and national tournaments, including Isidore Newman, Durham Academy, the Barkley Forum and and Harvard. My students have found success at both the national and state levels.

POs- I default to you. Remember, your tone as PO has a big influence on tone of the chamber. Be efficient, clear and consistent and have fun.

As far as the round and debate within the round, consistency is important to me. The way you speak and vote on one piece of legislation should most indeed influence your position on similar limitation unless you tell me otherwise. Debate and discourse does not exist in a vacuum.

Acting/characterization is fine as long as there is a reason and has a positive impact.

Finding a balance of logos, ethos and pathos is important. Difficult to accomplish in three minutes? Absolutely. The balance is what gets my attention.

I'll be honest. I don't like when debate jargon leaks into the chamber. SQUO, affirmative/negative, counterplan, link/turn, etc. This event is it's own unique event with norms.

Additionally, Student Congress is not Extemp-lite. If you are trying for three points in a speech, how do I know what to focus on? If everything is equally important then nothing is important. Take a stance, go for the impact and make the balance between logic and emotional to persuade. Include previous debate points, elucidate your point of view and have fun.

Howdy! My background speaking and debating experience boils down to Novice and Varsity Public Forum, Impromptu and Extemporaneous, and literary Extemporaneous.

My preference for speakers is that they be relaxed when they read their speeches. I will have a problem flowing if you start spreading, and will not flow if I can't understand understand what you're saying, so please take your time to get your points across and to develop your claims. I will do my best to flow cross.

For me, Tech and Truth are very similar. If you have sufficient evidence against a truth, tech wins. If your truth isn't countered by sufficient tech, truth wins.

For those sweet sweet speaker points, the following is true

1. Use of History. This can be in humor or in-bedded in the actual argument. I like it when people make connections between the past and the present, and how that will affect the future. I also like a good laugh, so some historical humor is very welcome.

2. Band jokes. I'm a section leader in the marching band, and I play Baritone/Euphonium. Make some jokes about band and music theory to lighten the mood.

3. Lastly, talk clearly and relaxed. This experience may fill you with anxiety and fear, but remember to relax a little. This isn't the end all be all, and no one is flawless. The cooler mind thinks better than the heated one. (Plus, it helps against stuttering and messing up).

I wish y'all the best of luck and Happy Debating!

I am an erstwhile LD/PF debater, and I have been called back to be a judge in this crazy world. Online debating and judging is new for most of us, but I am eager to assist in making this situation more normal-crazy than crazy-crazy. And if we are at a live, real, honest-to-God in-person tournament, then I promise you that the crazy ain't just in the internet: Here, There Be Dragons. I wish you the best of luck and skill as you debate this year!

Email for evidence chains and whatnot: will.hobson911@gmail.com

Ultra Important Ground Rules

In 85% of things, I am a laid-back and low maintenance judge, but I do have a few nonnegotiable rules that must be followed in order to have a fair and fun matchup. These should be common sense, but god knows common sense is less common than it should be.

-Courtesy is the most important thing I consider in rounds. If you do not treat your opponent with respect, chances are that I will not respect you on the ballot. If anyone harms the integrity of the round by being discriminatory, rude, or unprofessional, I will immediately stop the round. You do not have to like your opponent, but you should at least pretend to do so for about an hour. If you have a legitimate problem with the other team, please bring up your concerns before the final focus or final segment.

-Given the circumstances of having to rely on technology for some tournaments, tech problems are not rare. If you have had troubles with connections or hardware, please let me know beforehand so we don't have to trouble shoot problems during the round.

PF/LD Preferences

-Please, for the love of all that is holy, do not spread (i.e. speed-read). I will not be able to understand you, and that's gonna be rough, buddy. If for some reason you must, I will require you to drop your case in the file share for mine and your opponent's benefit so we can at least try to follow your barrage.

-Concision and clarity are key. If I can not follow your arguments or identify your contentions, links, or impacts in my flow, I will probably assume that you are being willfully obtuse which is not a good look. Reminder: Neither PF nor LD debate is about proving that you are the smartest person in the room or showing me that you have the best words; it is about proving that you have the most cogent and sensible argument. This is about communication, not obfuscation.

-Do not, do not, do not introduce new contentions in rebuttals, summaries, or final focuses. That is called playing dirty. Likewise, please refrain from introducing new constructive evidence in the last half of the debate round; defending evidence is still admissible and is encouraged.

-Nuclear Stuff (PF): I know every debater and their mother likes LOVES to throw in nuclear war as the ultimate harm or impact for either their case or rebuttal, so much so that it has become a meme of sorts. I find this to be an exceptionally tiring thing to listen to as a judge. Nuclear war is such a complex, and more importantly a serious and severe topic that using it frivolously in a debate comes across as childish at best, and cynical at worst. Trivially connecting the incomprehensible Horrors of nuclear war with a topic like urban development or cryptocurrency just comes across as intentional malpractice. If your topic justifiably includes nuclear war as an impact, I will need an iron clad link chain and evidence connecting the two, more than just asking me to assume that it will happen. Be professional. (I apologize for my rant and the irritation shown in it).

-I will generally base speaker points on rhetorical skill rather than argumentative technicals.

-If you do plan on running a K argument, please let me know before the round starts. If you are, I will probably require you to drop your case in the file share or evidence chain for the benefit of myself and the other team. Likewise, theory arguments are cool (really!), but they must be constructed in a clear and cogent manner. I should not have to work to understand what you are saying.

-Constantly tell me why I should vote for you. In other words, weigh impacts and extend your arguments. Please don't just repeat your contentions for every segment. That ain't debate, friend-o.

-Don't assume that I am a genius. Signpost your contentions and your cards, if possible.

I am a debate team coach. Please keep your own time. You may speak at whatever speed you are comfortable with but keep in mind that if you speak too quickly your points may be missed. I will be looking at which team was best able to promote their position while negating the opposing position.

I was a 4-year debater at Carrollton High School and I have only judged and competed in Public Forum.

my email is javierlm030503@gmail.com if you have any questions after the round.

Expectations

1) tech > truth

2) Do not bring up any new arguments from the second summary onwards

3) No racist or sexist remarks

4) I am not your person for theory at all

If you have any questions let me know

Background: I did PF debate throughout high school, and judged after I graduated. Most recently, while I was in law school, I coached the Notre Dame Parliamentary Debate Team, and taught an intro to debate and public speaking class.

Theory: Go for it, if you want, but the argument needs to be clear and concise. Also, in general, I am wary of using theory in PF debate because the topic has been chosen for a reason.

Organization: Please make it clear what contentions you are arguing/rebutting, just makes it easier to flow.

Cross-Fire: Though I do pay attention, I do not flow it—so if something important happens bring it up in a speech.

Summary Speeches: I don't consider brand new arguments raised during the summary speeches. I just don't think it's fair because the other team will not have adequate time to respond.

Final Focus: Supposed to be a summary, give me your voters and make them clear. Tell me why I am voting for you.

Decision: I vote based on the flow, so do not drop arguments, and be sure to offer rebuttals against all your opponents' arguments, and impacts. If the flow/impact debate is not clear, I will consider the quality of the presentation and/or the evidence relied on. However, if the teams agree (or one team offers and the other concedes to) a framework, I will vote based on which team fulfilled the framework.

One last thing: Let's all be respectful, remember we are all real human beings behind the screens.

* Quality of argumentation

* I don't like people getting angry, personal, or condescending during debate

I have debated for 4 years at Columbus High with experience in both Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas Debate.

After debating throughout high school, the main takeaway I came out with was that the skills you gain by debating in a "lay" format are far more applicable to the real world compared to the "tech" format that many of you probably follow. With that being said, you should try to treat me as a "lay" judge with basic tech experience.

I am the world's biggest fan of logic and reasoning. Reading a bunch of cards can only go so far to convince an audience of a certain arguement, but taking 10 seconds to explain the simple logic behind can seal the deal.

A lot of judges dismiss cross examination, I am not one of those judges. If used correctly, cross x can be very productive and fun.

Be reasonable with prep.

There is a difference between speaker points and winner of rounds. Witty humor will always help speaks. No need to be too formal!

HAVE FUN! or there is no point to any of this!

s/o Anthony Ovadje for the paradigm template :)

I did PF for four years at Marist School.

General Stuff

Weigh and warrant arguments.

Tech > Truth

Add me to the email chain: vance.sydneym@gmail.com

Evidence

If you don't cut cards, strike me. I won't drop you if you paraphrase, but you must have cards available if called for and it will hurt your speaker points. I usually won't call for cards myself, but if your evidence is terribly misconstrued, I won't evaluate it and will tank your speaks.

2nd Half

2nd rebuttal must frontline defense and turns

Summary and FF must extend all parts of an argument if you want me to vote off of it

Speed

I'm fine with speed, but clarity is always more important

Theory/Kritiks

I have basically no experience with K lit, but I'm open to hearing K/soft left arguments. A lot more warranting and explanation needs to be done if you are running this argument in front of me.

I'll usually vote for paraphrasing and disclosure theory unless it's handled atrociously. If your opponents do something terrible in round, I'll also evaluate some sort of shell explaining why its unfair.

Other

Have fun! Debate is really competitive and intense at times, but you will make rounds better for you, your opponents, and judges if you actually seem to be enjoying yourself.

If you have any questions you can ask me in round or just email me.

he/him/his

Hey, I'm Mark! I'm first year out of Carrollton (GA), where I debated PF on the local and national circuits. I qualified to the TOC and NSDA Nationals a few times, all in PF. I'm a first-year at the University of Georgia now studying political science, international affairs, and Spanish.

Please start an email chain before the round. Please put me in it: mvzjr2@gmail.com.

Debate how you want to. This is your activity. It is my job to judge all forms of debate equitably. That said, I have found that I have certain unconscious preferences in the debate space. You can take these with a grain of salt, or you can try to adapt. That is completely up to you. I will never drop someone solely because they don't debate how I did or how I prefer. I never really know how to structure my preferences, so below are my best attempts. Let me know if you have any questions either through email or in person before the round.

_________________________________________

-100% tech>truth. I believe that debate is a game. I will vote on absolutely anything if it is extended well. Go for whatever you want to, but this means that every part of the argument has to be extended--including the link chain, warranting, specific evidence, and impact.

-Because you have to extend all parts of the argument, collapsing is often helpful. Collapse as early as you want.

-Go as fast as you want, but don't sacrifice clarity. I debated really quickly and can handle speed, but I think spreading is kind of annoying. That doesn't mean you can't do it, but if you do, it needs to be REALLY well done. If you get close to spreading, send me a speech doc.

-I don't flow cross.

-Time yourselves, please.

-I have a pretty solid threshold for theory and have some competitive experience with it. If you run theory, ensure that it is not abusive. I don’t think that a formal counterinterp is necessary to respond to a shell, just give responses like you would a normal argument. If it's frivolous and the opposing team indicts that, I will drop you and play Tetris on my laptop.

-Paraphrasing is probably fine (definitely not preferred), but if you misconstrue evidence, I will hardcore drop your speaks. I might also drop you. When an opponent asks for evidence, I will give you about 1 minute to send it in the email chain (as a cut card) and then start docking speaks (this can be altered at my discretion due to technology issues, etc.).

-PLEASE SIGNPOST. I also prefer line-by-line in rebuttal and summary, but this isn't necessarily a "must-do to pick up my ballot" type of thing.

-Weighing is really important. Do the weighing for me as early as possible. This said, weighing should not just be "we outweigh on magnitude/probability/scope/whatever other debate jargon you throw at me". Give me analyses as to why you're winning the round, which should be adequate. If the weighing is left to me, it might not be considered in the way that you want it to be.

-Frontline in 2nd rebuttal or first summary. Nothing new should be read second summary and beyond.

-Be respectful in a round or I will tank your speaker points and drop you. Debate is a really important educational opportunity and I believe that learning is the sole reason that this activity exists. Disrespectful and discriminatory behavior kills this, so I believe the punishment is warranted.

_________________________________________

I start speaker points at a 28 and then go up and down from there. I am usually pretty generous with speaks. You shouldn't get below a 26 unless you did something discriminatory or extremely disrespectful.

Feel free to (civilly) postround me, but make sure everything is submitted on my end. I think that post rounding is educational for both the judge and the debater, and ensures that judges are checked for bad decisions.

If you are funny I will boost your speaks. Please be funny.

I disclose unless the tournament tells me not to.

If you have any questions, please contact me. You can email me, send me a message on Instagram (@markzimmer_), talk to me, or send me a carrier pigeon. Anything works.