I love to see honest acting in interpretation events. If you have blocking, l'd like it to be clearly purposeful and clean. Most importantly, have fun.

In platform events I like you have unique analyses of your topics with clear implications. Again, above all else, just have fun.

I am a college student who debated extensively on the Mississippi circuit as well as about a dozen times on the national circuit in PF, LD, Policy, Congress, and Extemp from 2016-2020. I've competed at NCFL Nationals in Policy as well as the Harvard Invitational my junior year of high school. Please include me on the email chain: wlbagget@go.olemiss.edu.

A few notes:

1. Please attempt to respect pronouns and avoid blatantly homophobic/transphobic/xenophobic arguments. I use they/them pronouns. It's never gotten to that point for me, but decorum and respect are very important in how I judge a round and award speaker points.

2. I come from a very trad circuit, but I have seen (and participated in) plenty of progressive rounds. Please don't assume that just because I'm from Mississippi, I won't be able to judge you well.

3. If you're not from the South, don't comment on how backward it is. :) So many debaters do this habitually and it drives me insane. You're not being woke. You're being classist.

In depth CX/LD info:

Topicality: So many CX rounds for me center around topicality. If the NEG can sufficiently prove why the AFF is not topical AND what abuses that causes the NEG, it's normally a very compelling reason for me to vote on T in the NEG's favor. That being said, T is only a significant issue to me if the NEG emphasizes a harm to the debate or an unfairness. Generally, I don't find T's in response to K AFF's that convincing, but I've been surprised before.

CPs: Please read one. If not, you must prove that either the status quo solves or the issues outlined by the AFF aren't significant. PIC's make me happy; I tend not to buy "PIC is abusive" theory from the AFF.

K/Performance: Read it. I'm probably not familiar with it if it's way out there, but I love hearing new arguments. Don't think that just because you can read performance well and your opponent is trad that you'll win; I've been on the other side of it and using this to abuse novices isn't really chill with me.

DA's: Go for it bud.

Framework: Even if unsuccessful, an intelligently argued framework will probably earn you higher speaks! To me, framework is what makes debate fun and what gives what we're talking about context.

Theory: Read it. I'll weigh anything.

Any other questions, just shoot me an email.

Spreading is fine, but if you go so fast I stop writing, that's because I can't understand you. Your points cannot be added to the flow if I do not understand them. This will not happen often, but if you see me put the pen down, you are going too fast.

Please refrain from abusing theory until it drops dead and needs its corpse moved around on a marionette. You will be penalized for shameless abuse of debate.

I did LD, some Policy/CX, and Congress in high school.

Policy Paradigm - quick 20 seconds before round are in bullets:

•Prep ends when you hit send on a document or remove the flash drive from your machine.
•Ideologically agnostic, read t, fw, cp, da, k, whatever. I coached and did a breadth and depth of k literature (that was cutting edge back in the day) and am now working with a team that goes 1 off heg. Do you, and your best debating, and I will work my hardest to adjudicate and respect the debate before me.
•Look for strong offense comparison for me to resolve the debate in your favor.
•Email: austin.brittenham@gmail.com


I'm increasingly becoming flow oriented - I'll adjudicated under any framework that a team wins. For this to happen, there must be a portion of the debate where you positively delineate your vision of how I ought adjudicate a round. That said, my default is really about my flow, focusing on the line by line rather than embedded clash will really help me adjudicate in a way which will favor you. I also find myself using my flow to be clear about what the debaters in the round were putting into words for me, rather than would I thought debaters meant by an argument. I flow your words and warrants, if you phrase things defensively, I will think of it defensively, etc.

Optimizing your chance to win - Frame your offense and compare it to the other teams, generally. I think that's the core of debate no matter how you think about arguments in debate. The 2nr ought centralize out offense, compare that offense to the 1ar offense. The 2ar should win some remaining offense and compare it to the neg offense.

History - I debated for 3 years in high school and 4 years in college. I went to the NDT my junior and senior years debating arguments about embodiment, transness, and queerness. That being said my high school debate experience was primarily flex debating. I have a strong respect for the cp/ptx da combo .I've now coached middle school, high school policy, and college NPDA Parliamentary debate and NDT/CEDA policy debate.

I think kritik alternatives should solve the links & impacts they identify. If the critique says capitalism causes environmental destruction, I need to know either how the 1ac/plan being capitalist produces environmental destruction, or how the alternative solves all of capitalism producing environmental destruction. A simple rejection of bad epistemology probably doesn't solve Britain being a capitalist state, but a global violent revolution might. Similarly, why is it that encountering a capitalist in a debate round is bad if that debater doesn't have their hands on levers of power? For me, I just need a coherency among all portions of a critique. To be clear, do a discourse, reps, epistemology, whatever argument, but make sure there is congruence among the 3 parts.

I think that "methods" debates don't necessarily mean that the affirmative doesn't get a permutation. Methods seem permutable to me. Asserting "it's a methods debate so perms" is certainly not an argument because it is a claim without a warrant. To be clear no perms bc methods is a winnable argument in front of me, but my predisposition is the other way and brisk debating on the theory will not end favorably.

Messy debates will often have me resolve in favor of the negative--the 2ar has the chance to clean up the debate but didn't.

Msc Theory - I think that critical affs should either normatively defend something that isn't the squo or have defense of why their speech act/performance generates offense that is unix to each debate round.

I think try-or-die is really vote aff on presumption which seems silly. Like either the aff wins their impacts or they don't, try-or-die seems like a concession that you've lost the impact defense.

I think (logically limited) conditionality is fine and am not generally inclined to vote on conditionality unless there is an in round impact.

Fiat - is a normative question regarding whether or not the aff/plan/advocacy ought happen. This does not mean that it does happen or would happen, if something wouldn't happen in the status quo, that is inherency for the aff. Many fiat debates that I've seen seem to assume other interpretations of fiat. Please explain for me your version and how it operates for me to be on the same page as you, otherwise I will presume this interpretation.

**These are just how I enter into a debate. Please obviously debate and win the arg and I will vote against my feelings.

If this isn't helpful please ask me questions before the round.

I debated all of my years in high school, and one year in college. I'm familiar with everything in LD, PF, World Schools, Big Questions, and Policy. So, feel free to run pretty much anything. There aren't any particular judging ideas that I adhere to. I judge largely based on the flow and care a lot about how the debate is framed. I'm perfectly fine with kritiks, or any other techy debate, as it were. With that said, if you want to run that, slow down a bit so that I understand what the core of your arguments are whenever going over any kind of metadebate. I'm not a very difficult judge to please, and I'm open to pretty much whatever you want to argue. Win my ballot by telling me why I ought to give it to you.

Background: Former LD, CX and PF debater

I’m tabula rasa on most things, just don’t advocate for positions that are evil or trollish.

I will attempt to respect the norms of the circuit and tournament I am judging at; I do not want to impose on any particular debate style but I am also open to hearing theoretical arguments during the round.

While evidence is good, I believe too often many rely on ‘evidence dumping’ and focus too little on analytics. Basically, spend a fair amount of time framing, contextualizing, weighing, clash, etc.

For speaker points, I base it off everything but your physical speaking ability. How well did I think you navigated the round, how did you choose to order arguments, and overall strategy contribute a lot here.

Respect each other and please signpost!

If you have questions please let me know.

bennettjamesbrown@gmail.com

I'm a lay judge, but by day I'm a professional educator and parent of a debater. I love to give my time to this activity because I firmly believe it's good for young people, but I don't have the technical knowledge of someone who either debated in school or coaches debaters. If you feel like you've been "judge screwed," it's probably because you're operating at a level that relies on tricks that those "in the know" use and can judge. I'm not them, but you need to know that people like me make this activity possible for you. In round, please avoid jargon like "dis-ad," "the burden of the neg," and the like. If you can do this debate thing well, you'll present a coherent, rational argument, and demonstrate your understanding by making it comprehensible to an old fool like me, not hiding behind complex language tricks. You won't get my vote based on the quantity of contentions you enumerate, but their quality and coherence. Don't do shady stuff with sources. Stay decent with one another. Don't spread. You'll win my ballot with actual excellence in argumentation, not sophistry. That said, it's my privilege to get to spend time with curious, motivated and capable people like you.

Credentials: I was a PFer throughout high school who dabbled in LD and CX but not too often. I was a PF state champion in a traditional state and have competed at a handful of national tournaments.

General:

- Back in the days when I was a debater, I was quite interested in technical debate styles like that seen on the national circuit. However, in my old age (23), I haven't been in the debate world for a while and haven't kept up with that type of stuff too much. This is all to say that I can flow whatever style of debate you're comfortable with as long as its nothing too crazy experimental. Just please keep in mind that debate is for everyone and I'm not gonna give you points just because you know a bunch of tech-y terms. Traditional done well is better than circuit done poorly. Also, if you're gonna spread please send me your case beforehand so I can flow everything correctly.

- Don't assume I know anything beyond the knowledge of a normal person (and remember normal people usually aren't nearly as educated on this topic as you are). I like to think I'm politically educated, but I'm not reading up on the geopolitical state of Bhutan every morning before I head off to work. Please give me at least basic context for what you're arguing. Don't throw out acronyms or niche terms that I have no idea of the meaning for. It takes 5 seconds to explain what a word means and could save you from having a confused judge.

- Just as an FYI, I'm very open to arguments attacking weak links as I believe lazy cases are often constructed with poor quality links from biased sources. If you can demonstrate that the opponent

- I'm generally tech > truth. I appreciate creative arguments if you can make them work. However, there are some caveats to this:

- Don't use a really unorthodox argument for the sole purpose of throwing off opponents who don't have prep on that one niche issue. While I'm certainly guilty of having done this time to time when I debated, in all honesty it makes debate more toxic and less accessible. Niche arguments are fine but only if you can prove that they aren't flimsy and shallow. If you're running a really weird argument at a traditional tournament, please make sure the links are solid and topicality is not questionable (particularly in PF, I'm ok with topicality being an issue in LD). If you run something totally off the wall (in a bad way) and your opponent calls you on disclosure theory or fairness, I will definitely hear them out.

- Tech > truth does not mean I will remain unbiased against clear misinformation from links. If you use a source that is widely known to be not trustworthy, I will be biased against that argument it is supporting. While it is still the opponent's duty to say the source is biased, I can't just let an InfoWars citation slide without at least being inclined not to trust the argument.

- Weigh your arguments. I can't emphasize this enough. I don't care if an argument flows the round if you never told my why that argument matters in relation to the debate as a whole. Sell your impacts and contextualize.

- I'm sure y'all know to do this anyway, but please keep the debate space inclusive. Respect pronouns, give a CW if it's appropriate, and don't be rude. I hope I don't sound like a nerd but I like it when people are nice to each other.

PF-specific:

Ok so I do have some expectations around the content of speeches, which I'll lay out below for full transparency on the perspective I'm bringing to this.

- Summary is the most important speech in my eyes. It is here that the debate starts to collapse in on the most important arguments of the round. A strong way to structure a summary speech would be by refuting anything important that your opponent mentioned in Rebuttal and then telling me what the debate is coming down to, what I should vote for, and why you are winning on those points.

- Final Focus is similar to Summary, except its main focus should be weighing. Tell me the most important voters from the round, and tell me why you ultimately have won on them. No new arguments should be made here, and nothing outside of what you mentioned in Summary either.

LD-specific:

- If this is a value debate, I expect your framework to be upheld or it's gonna be a lot harder to vote for you even if you have good arguments otherwise. This is, of course, unless you can show that your arguments are still true and vote-worthy under your opponent's framework.

- I've only ever done traditional LD so obviously I'm not gonna be super knowledgable about more progressive forms of LD. That said, if you feel more comfortable running progressive stuff, feel free to go for it and just be clear about what you're doing and where it needs to go on my flow. I've competed in and judged some policy so I won't be too lost with policy-style debating.

Email chain please: columbus.debate.team@gmail.com

PF:

PLEASE DO NOT PARAPHRASE YOUR CASE OR MISCUT EVIDENCE

PF/LD

1. CLARITY IS KEY!! That applies to speech, organization, signposting, etc.

2. Please warrant your claims and evidence once brought up, not later in the round or next speech (see point 1)

3. Speed is fine, I only judge what I can flow however, so I cannot say I am going to get everything down if you are spreading. I definitely prefer slower more traditional rounds. With that said, if you want to spread make sure your opponent is okay with it. You shouldn't spread/speed in PF, it's in the rules and norms of the event. It is called PUBLIC forum for a reason.

4. I studied philosophy during my time in university. Please do not throw out theory or K's without having done the necessary background research to really know what you are talking about. The round will be messy because of it, which takes us back to point 1 on clarity.

WORLD SCHOOLS:

1. Slow down, this isn't policy. You not only need to argue effectively, you need to persuade.

2. Principled arguments > specific examples and evidence. Not to say you shouldn't have specific evidence, but often the more philosophical grounds of reasoning get left out in favor of, basically, carded evidence

3. New arguments in the back half of the debate are unadvisable and don't allow the other side enough time to have a developed response.

4. Keep your eye aware for POI's, if you see one but are choosing to ignore it, indicate verbally or with a hand motion.

hey,

I'm currently a sophomore in college that participated in PF, extemp, and impromptu through the last three years of high school

-flow judge

-weighing is incredibly important. if you're not weighing, you're going to lose. if you have an amazing linkchain that ultimately boils down to a negligible impact, your argument's null. if you do have a serious impact, but you fail to weigh it over your opponent's, it's like you made a cake and forgot to frost it.

-actually weigh too please, don't just say your impact beats theirs. explain why

-imo PF's natural framework is util. if you don't engage in the framework debate, util's my framework

-frontline and extend everything. new arguments in summary or FF aren't arguments, just wastes of time

-tech over truth unless it's nonsensical and obviously false

-if it's PF, please don't spread. it's not policy, you really don't have enough to say to warrant it. you obviously still can spread, but if you do then I'll have both teams disclose

-my email is cmdoughe@go.olemiss.edu

-i debated in the Louisiana circuit so I'm only somewhat familiar with progressive argumentation. i still understand it, though, so feel free to use it; if it's PF, it doesn't really have a place but I can't stop you

-signposting. just, like, do it lol

-i'll listen to cross-x because it matters, but if you want me to flow something from it then bring it up in speech

-obviously second rebuttal should respond to first rebuttal

-be respectful of your opponent(s) and don't take yourself too seriously

that's all, hope y'all have fun

Email me for any questions about the round or otherwise halgregfox@gmail.com.

Experience: I debated throughout high school and have coached several debaters in Lincoln Douglass and Public Forum

I may ask to see cards after the round, especially if the evidence is highly disputed. If you would like me to examine a card, either yours or your opponents, just ask.

Lincoln Douglass

1. Lincoln Douglass is values debate. I like cases that build solid philosophical frameworks and carry their importance throughout the round. Explain why your ethical interpretation of the topic is superior to your opponent's. The framework is the principle way to determine the values we should be operating under in the round, and so it is incredibly important that you fight to win on it.

2. Speed is fine but if you spread I expect you to email both me and your opponent your case to follow along, otherwise I will consider spreading unfair and abusive in the round.

3. I am fine with progressive debate but I am swayed much easier by traditional arguments. I was a traditional debater in high school, and it's the LD I like to see.

4. Be clear with signposting!! If I can't follow your argument on the flow, your chances of winning the round are not very high- same story if I can't track your arguments on your opponent's flow. Voters and a quick summation of your argument at the end of your speech will also earn you points. Refer to evidence by the author's name and don't throw me for a loop scrambling up and down the flow.

5. Cross-ex is your time to gain concessions and clarify what you need clarified. I won't flow it, and it won't factor into my decision for the round. If you want something said in cross-ex to factor into the decision making, bring it up in your speech.

6. This should go without saying, but be respectful. No screaming or attacks on your opponent will be tolerated. I don't really expect this to be a problem, but I've encountered these types of debaters before in LD.

Public Forum

1. Spreading in public forum debate is ridiculous. Don't do it. This is layman's debate, so obviously progressive debate and theory is unacceptable as well.

2. PF seems to struggle with this the most out of any other debate event- BE RESPECTFUL. Being louder and more snide will only lose you speaking points. Passion is perfectly fine, but there's a palpable difference between listening to an impassioned speech and a spoken word hate letter.

3. SIGNPOST. I need to know where you are taking me in your case and your opponent's case, refer to evidence by the author's name and don't throw me for a loop scrambling up and down the flow.

4. I am aware of the rules of public forum. Don't try to introduce new evidence/arguments past the rebuttal speeches. I will find it and I will drop it, like the terminator, but for unfair evidence. Frontlining in the 1st summary speech is obviously fine.

5. Crossfire is your time to gain concessions and clarify what you need clarified. I won't flow it, and it won't factor into my decision for the round. If you want something said in crossfire to factor into the decision making, bring it up in your speech. Disclaimer- if crossfire devolves into a screaming match, especially during grand cross, I will deduct speaks.

6. Weigh in your final focus! It's all about impacts, and I want to see why yours are more impactful than your opponent's.

╱▏┈┈┈┈┈┈▕╲▕╲┈┈┈

▏▏┈┈┈┈┈┈▕▏▔▔╲┈┈

▏╲┈┈┈┈┈┈╱┈▔┈▔╲┈

╲▏▔▔▔▔▔▔╯╯╰┳━━▀

┈▏╯╯╯╯╯╯╯╯╱┃┈┈┈

┈┃┏┳┳━━━┫┣┳┃┈┈┈

┈┃┃┃┃┈┈┈┃┃┃┃┈┈┈

┈┗┛┗┛┈┈┈┗┛┗┛┈┈┈

lil dog for ya, good luck in the round

Ask me.

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.

Make sure I can understand you; don't speak too fast!
Above all, be respectful to each other!

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! My name is Anna (she/they). I was a high school debater for 4 years competing in primarily PF, Worlds, Poetry, and Informative Speaking. I have also experienced and have knowledge in Congressional Debate, Prose, and Duo Interpretation.

My goal as your judge is to make sure that you feel comfortable, are able to take away something important from the round, and have fun! As such, feel free to contact me about any questions you have through my email (annakang613@gmail.com).

Now, here is some important judging criteria for the following events:

Overall Comments for Debate:

- Please speak a bit slower. This allows me to write as much as you want me to judge. Refrain from spreading if you can, and I'll note in the round if you are speaking too fast for me to write. I want to at least get as much as I can to properly judge.

- If you go overtime in your speech, know that I won't flow from that point. Additionally, just know you are keeping yourself from ending the round earlier than you would be.

- (Just my own little pet peeve) I will want you all to refrain from saying, "my opponent made a mistake" or anything that sounds like you are directing comments to your opponents. I want you to focus on the arguments, not directing the mistakes to the opponent. This won't change any differences in points, but it might just be a little thorn on my side throughout the round.

PF:
This is a debate that needs evidence but most importantly elaboration and ability to translate that evidence to your argumentation. I don't want the debate to be based on spreading and ultimately getting confused on what the opponents are arguing. Make sure you are speaking clearly and clarifying your argumentation along the way to win the round. Here are some other things I want you to note:

- I need you to weigh. I am going to heavily emphasize on the fact that I want to see the summary speech be used to not only clear up some misunderstandings, but also be the key deciding factor of the weighing aspects of the round.

- Argumentation should be carried throughout the round. From rebuttal, to summary, and finally final focus. If I don't see that trend, then I can't carry your argument until the very end. Make sure to collapse when you need to, and plan accordingly so you don't get overwhelmed at the end. It makes it easier for me to judge as well.

- I will not be flowing cross. I will still listen in and see how you all act during that time, but I will only flow the content that was taken from that time if you bring it up in your other speeches.

- I will default to a cost/benefit analysis framework if none are given at the beginning of the round. Please make sure to provide argumentation as to why your framework should stand if you are going to provide one. If your opponents are able to adequately answer to it or negate the reason for why we need such a framework, then I won't consider it.

LD:

TBH, I sadly don't know much about this field. All I know is that you have to substantially provide evidence for your value and criterion with your contentions. Follow the comments above if I am your judge for LD, and I will do my best.

Congress:

If I ever judge this, just know that I want to see professionalism, funny remarks, and good speeches. I also really appreciate good questions, since this tells me you are paying attention.

Policy:

I don't know much about this debate form as much, but I will do my best to follow, so bear with me as I try my best. You guys have lots of time in comparison to other debate forms, but I understand the feel and need to fit more information during that time as well. Make the debate not as a speed-race for how many words you can get in, but I would like to see the arguments getting thrown back and forth and engaged with by both teams. Similar to my points in PF, I will judge most of the arguments based on those particular points made above.

Worlds:

If I ever judge this, I can provide more specific comments after round. Most importantly, I want to see teamwork and flowed argumentation throughout the 3 speeches. I love to see how future speeches will respond to the ones that happened earlier and provide answers to certain substantives. Clever remarks and team lines will also give extra points from me.

Overall Comments for Speech:

- Show how much you are passionate for your topic and event. This can differ from each event, but if I see that particular enthusiasm for the topic, you can definitely pull me in and keep me on my toes.

- Speak clearly

- I will provide hand signals and give you ones that I think are necessary for that particular event. If you have specific signals that you would like, feel free to ask me to do them! I have a phone timer for that reason :)

- If you have any more questions, feel free to ask before you begin!

No spreading, unless you want to lose me. Ultimately the argument that I find most logical and makes the best points will win.

I did CX, LD, and a little PF and Congress in high school, though my debate experience is mostly limited to Mississippi (traditional debate). I also was an octafinal at NSDA in HI, and state co-champion for duet acting my senior year.

General Paradigm:

* Speed is okay as long as I can understand you and you're taking time to actually back up what you're saying.

* I assign speaker points based on overall contribution to the debate, tactically and in how compelling you are.

* Make sure to have good tech and counter arguments down the ballot, but I'm not going to consider tech if your argument is just too out there (no "jellyfish will fix our police system" pls).

* Feel free to have creative arguments, but please make it easy for me to flow and make it explicitly clear why you think I should vote for you instead of the other guys. (Weight impacts!)

* Fairness is a thing. Just be nice to each other :)

CX:

* I'm from traditional CX. That's what I'm used to and what I like, so try to keep that in mind as much as possible. It's also been three years since I've done CX in earnest, so I'm rusty, especially on the jargon.

* If you can help it, try not to spread. Speed is fine, though, as long as I can understand what you're saying clearly. If I can't catch what you said, it's tough for me to understand your argument.

* Please tag your arguments, and slow down when you do. A clean flow is a good flow.

* I only read what you read.

* Every case doesn't have to be about the apocalypse. Unless you have a strong link, please don't tell me about the dead rising from the grave, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria, etc. (Be creative with arguments, just make sure you have good links!)

* I'm open to but skeptical of kritiks. If you run one, be sure to be very clear on why it's relevant as to how I should vote, with specific links to the opposing team, no "Cap K and run away."

* If you run Death Good, it might be kinda funny but I probably won't vote for you.

LD:

* Not too familiar with progressive LD (remember, Mississippi), but if that's what you know how to run then feel free, just know you'll have to explain things to me and be very clear about what you're doing.

* In a V/C debate, make sure to uphold your value.

PF:

* Accessibility of arguments is really important here. This is a "public" forum.

* Use Final Focus for the final focus please.

* Speaking is more important to me here than in other debate events, but arguments are still what matters most.

Debate is an intellectual expression of the arts of reading, writing, speaking, and listening.

A strong debater presents well organized, intellectual content that rises to the level of artful, expressive and receptive communication.

The flow of the debate should be simple for me, or any other judge, to record if the debater's content is smoothly and succinctly presented. The debater(s) with the strongest content will earn the ballot. The artistic use of speaking, reading, writing, and listening add tremendous strength to any public speaking opportunity. The refined use of these tools advance the debate from weak assertions or argumentation to the classical expression of competing viewpoints found in all forms of debate.

If you are speaking faster than I can write, I'll put my pencil down so I can listen intently. At this point it would be wise for a debater to speak slower. Then I could return to flowing the debate so I have this documentation to review when completing the ballot and to help me make the right decision.

I did policy in hs and currently do British Parli in college, for policy debate I heavily focus and emphasize impact weighing in deciding my ballot. I want to hear not only why you won the round but why your case leads to a better world, outcome, or meets a value best (or rather, why the opponent's case does not).

I will listen to topicality arguments however they need to be fleshed out with good link work. If you do run topicality, please tell me the exact thing your opponent has done that is untopical. Don't read a generic topicality file without telling me what part of their case it applies to. In order to vote on topicality I also need to see why topicality should be weighed above anything else in the round.

I'm decent at keeping up with taglines but please explain what a card is instead of just referencing it. For example, if halfway through the round you say "our fox 2014 card trumps their cnn 2013 card" I might be slightly confused unless you say specifically what those 2 cards refer to.

Overall, I prioritize a clean, civil debate above everything. Please be respectful to each other during rounds and have fun.

Also i'm okay with some speed but please don't spread too fast for me to understand you.

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.

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.