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.

Welcome to Speech and Debate! I competed in high school debate for two years and am currently competing in Speech and Debate on the collegiate level. In high school, I competed in Congressional Debate, Extemporaneous Speaking, Impromptu Speaking, Original Oratory, and Humorous Interpretation.

My credentials...

- I ended my career as one of the top 3 competitors in Congressional Debate in Mississippi.

- I competed in out-rounds at NSDA 2021 in Congressional Debate and P.O.ed on every level of competition.

- I was top 6 in HI at State Champs.

- I was State Champion in Original Oratory during the 2020-2021 MSHAA Debate Season.

- I STILL compete as a debater and speech kid!

Generally speaking...

- My pronouns are she/her!

- My email is madisonfbiggerstaff@gmail.com. Evidence? Loop me in! Questions? Don't hesitate to ask!

- Speech and Debate is an educational experience. Try to get something out of every round.

- Have fun! At the end of the day, the skills you acquire during your time as a debater are much more important than the trophies or wins.

For Congress:

- Clash with others in the chamber! Work to further the debate.

- Don't rehash! Bring up new points that haven't been introduced or attack/support points that were previously mentioned.

- Do NOT attack the speaker's personal looks or beliefs (unless you want this L).

- I love a good rebuttal speech. If you can demonstrate why the chamber should pass/fail a bill by addressing your opposing sides' arguments and take them down, I can tell you've been paying attention.

- PO will be in my top 8 if they are fair, clearly follow parliamentary procedure (there's wiggle room for a few mistakes, don't worry), and move the debate along. I'm looking for leadership! Being a PO isn't an easy task.

- Be yourself. Try not to give a "cookie-cutter" speech. I'm looking for originality and something that makes you different as a competitor. If you're yourself, you'll be your most confident and comfortable self. :)

For Public Forum:

- I can understand most competitors when speaking quickly. However, PF is supposed to be accessible, so tread carefully on spreading. If I cannot understand your contentions, it won't be flowed.

- Clearly define any terms in the resolution that may be interpreted in different ways.

- Defend your claims (I know, DUH). But, it is easy to get caught up in the main points of clash instead of dividing up your time appropriately.

- Use your crossfires appropriately. Don't waste any time.

- No long-winded questions/answers. This is interactive. Fair debates > Abusive debates.

Note: I'm big on no abuse in rounds. If you sound like Romeo during crossfire because you decided you must monologue, you aren't helping anyone (not even yourself). Even during your own speeches, there shouldn't be targeted remarks. Debate can be sassy, but shouldn't be disrespectful.

- Practice proper decorum and respect (unless you want the L).

- Explain it like I'm 12. If you can't tell me why I should vote for or against a resolution without using unnecessary jargon, I will probably default to the side that I understand better.

LD:

- My paradigm for LD is very similar to my paradigm for PF.

- Value and criterion are extremely important! Make sure you state these clearly.

Final Notes...

I don't ask for anything extra in rounds I judge. If I gave you a layout of how I wanted a round to go exactly, you wouldn't be your best self, competitor or not. I'm flexible. If you provide a good argument, support it without being abusive/rude, and do it with grace, you have a good standing in my books.

For judging I am incredibly easy when it comes to judging.  I like good debate that is clear and easy to follow.  I'm not a huge fan of spreading.  Especially in debate formats that it isn't meant for.  I will pretty much flow anything in the round with in reason.   If you stretch too radical then I'm not inclined to buy into your thoughts.  I've been judging world schools the last 9 years so prefer to stick to the ideals of world schools.  Definitions should be clean and easy to follow, nothing squirrely.

I have been coaching debate, speech, interp, and congress since 2011. I am pretty open to most types of debate, but I have some specific requirements for the individual debates and overall.

All Debates

Flow: I am generally a flow judge unless the event dictates otherwise. For PF, LD, and CX I will decide my win based on my flow.

Speed: I am fine with speed. That being said, I do expect to understand your SPEECH while you are giving it. If your speed causes you to slur words, not be understandable, or go too fast to make the round enjoyable, I will take off speaker points.

Courtesy: I expect a level of courtesy from all debaters at all times. If you ask a question, let your opponent answer. I also expect those answering questions to not waste time and answer with that in mind. Any form of discrimination WILL NOT BE TOLERATED in argumentation or remarks to one another. I will give you the loss and report you to tab if you make sexist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, ableist, or any other sort of discriminatory remarks. Additionally, I expect you to treat your opponents with respect. Calling them "liars" or implying or saying they are a worse debater than you is not a way to get on my good side.

Abusive Debate: I am a pretty intelligent lady, so I expect you to refrain from telling me what is on the ballot and follow what is on the ballot in the round----you should win with your arguments, not weaponizing rules. Focus on the debate, not reading to me what the ballot says. I can entertain some theory debate, but if you spend the whole round on that and not debating the topic at hand (or actively K'ing it effectively), you've lost me. Calling your opponent abusive without providing substantial support won't win you anything in my book, but remember, you should be able to win on the merits of the debate itself.

Weighing: I appreciate the active weighing of impacts in rounds; however, I do not immediately jump to a nuclear war impact or extinction impact without CLEAR LINKS that the resolution will make that happen. We live in a world where those things are possible by just walking outside, so I need to see the WHY of these arguments specific to the debate itself. Weighing only works if there are links to those impacts.

Tech/Truth: I will be honest- I am more of a "truth" person. I believe in discussing real-world issues in the round. However, I appreciate tech arguments as long as they fit within the confines of the debate.

Evidence: Clipping or misconstruing evidence will earn you a loss.

Specific Debates

Public Forum: I expect good speaking in public forum and accessibility to what you are saying. Public Forum needs to be as much about analysis and rhetoric as it is about evidence. Do not run plans in Public Forum.

Lincoln-Douglas: I do expect some framework debate, and I do not think LD is a one-person policy round. There needs to be active engagement with the opposing side. I am not a HUGE fan of plans/counterplans in LD, but K’s are fine.

Policy: I am pretty much down for anything, but I expect you to engage with the opposing side. I am likely to vote on T, especially if a plan or counterplan is abusive. All that said, CX should still be organized and involve good speaking skills.

Big Questions and World Schools- I expect these to be respectful debates that resemble a conversation about the topic rather than an attack on your opponent.

World Schools (specifically)- In World Schools, this should look like World Schools- NOT POLICY. I will not entertain spreading, over-sourcing, or not using good style, strategy, etc. For prepared motions, I also will not entertain abusive debate that is so limited it is impossible to prepare for before the tournament. Do Policy if you like Policy that much.

Spread only if the speed you use also allows for enough enunciation that I can understand. I can keep up, but only if I can comprehend.

I believe in traditional debate. In LD, everything is about the V/VC construct and should apply to it. I don't really care about definition debate unless it is absolutely vital. Observations don't really matter to me unless both sides agree to them.

In, PF I try to take the position of a typical citizen judge and base "my knowledge" only on what you tell me in the round and not what I already know. Civility is still important in cross-examination so it is important to remember that with me.

In Policy, I am least familiar, so I base everything on my flow and which side has the most arguments standing by the end of the debate. Also, and I know it may be unusual, but I do care if the plan actually makes sense because I can't vote for it if it doesn't.

I don't listen to parenthetical documentation as a source. What does that mean anyway???

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lincoln Douglas Debaters: I love to see a strong and continuous link to your Value and Value Criterion throughout your case. I judge by the flow, and do not mind spreading, but will not be able to fairly judge the round if I cannot understand you while spreading. Please be aware of your time, and be respectful during cross. This is not a Presidential Debate. Best of luck, Natalie

I am always excited to listen to the variety of arguments for each resolution in debate. I prefer debaters to present clear arguments with supporting sources to prove how their position is superior in the debate. I do not like excessive speed. If I cannot flow an argument, I am likely to miss important points and dropped arguments so it is in your best interest to be deliberate in your presentation. I do not particularly like definition debate. The winning competitor will be the person ( or team ) who effectively supports their initial position while also offering appropriate clash with the opponent's arguments.

Updated February 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The longer version (for all forms of debate)

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

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

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

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

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

Things that will cost you speaker points/the round:

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

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

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

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

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

Lincoln-Douglas Observations

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

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

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

Public Forum Specific Observations

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

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

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

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

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

I 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.

Talya Slaw
I debated for Wayne State for 5 years.
Now I coach for the University of Kansas.

***I have not been very involved in debate this year. Wayne State will be my first online tournament. So, err on the side of explaining more and speaking slower. Seriously, speak slower if you want me to know what you’ve said.***

TL;DR:
1. Arguments should have a claim, warrant, and implication.
2. A dropped argument is frequently a true argument. The only exception is if the original argument did not include the requirements in #3, in which case I might give the team that dropped the arg some leeway in hedging against an entirely new warrant or implication.
3. Don't be rude.
4. Yes, I want to be on the email chain : talya.slaw@gmail.com

Specifics:
- I feel most comfortable in rounds where the aff defends a topical plantext instrumentally and the negative presents some sort of CP & DA/DA & case strategy.
- The best “K rounds,” however, are still those that play out like CP/DA rounds, with link and impact analysis specific to the affirmative.

Topicality (separate "F/W/Method" section below):
- The aff should be topical
- I am not a good judge for "should = past tense of shall," "reduce =/= eliminate" and other self-serving interpretations negatives read as a timesuck against obviously topical affs. That being said, I am willing to vote on T, given that an interpretation, violation, standards, and voters are well articulated. Affirmatives should always make and extend a counter-interpretation.

Theory:
- The place I often eschew the Offense/Defense paradigm is in theory debates.
- I haven't formed a solid opinion on "judge kicking" CPs, but since the aff has the burden of proof in most theory debates, I think I am comfortable putting the burden on the aff to prove why the 2NR can't simultaneously go for a CP and the SQ.
- Affirmative permutations of the status quo are, by definition, an "intrinsicness-test" of a negative argument. Whether or not these are a good practice for cost-benefit calculation is up for debate, but asserting that the DA is intrinsic, when it clearly isn't, hardly counts as an argument.
- Conditionality is cool, but it gets less cool as the number of worlds presented and the wackiness of the general negative strategy increase. Dispo bad is a really tough sell.
- Perm theory = almost never a reason to reject the team. This is not definite, however. I can be persuaded that a certain perm or things like multiple perms are voting issues, I just don't find those arguments very persuasive. "Reject the argument not the team" seems quite persuasive here, but affs are probably better off not dropping these types of ags.
- Consult/Condition/Delay CPs – I think these CPs are absolutely devastating to aff ground unless the solvency evidence is case-specific. I won’t necessarily vote these CPs down on theory, but I am very receptive to the perm. Simply put, I think that the perm to do the counterplan is 100% legitimate and that severance based on time is silly.

Critiques:
- I feel most comfortable in K rounds that involve a lot of interaction with the aff's specific plan and advantages. In other words, you're better off with a topic specific K, or something like Capitalism or Security with topic specific links rather than recycled Heidegger, Baudrillard, Nietzsche, Deleuze, etc. There should be a coherent link, impact, and alternative.
- Don't assume I know what you're talking about.
- Affs are best answering the K at the alt and impact level as the neg will almost certainly win a link. Articulating why the alt doesn't solve the case and why the case outweighs the K impacts is usually the best strategy.

Framework / Method:
- Generally speaking, I think the aff should have to be, at the very least, explicitly about the topic. If you don't think the resolution is relevant to what aff you read, then don't pref me.
- Frequently, I resort to weighing framework and the aff as opportunity costs to each other. The team that controls the UQ level for "topic engagement now solves // doesn't solve" often times is ahead.

As a student, I competed at both the middle and high school levels in Individual Speech Events including, Dramatic Interpretation, Duo Interpretation, and Declamation. As a freshman in high school, I won the 1988 KY state championship in Oratorical Declamation. My university did not offer competitive speech and debate, so I did not compete at the collegiate level. I have taught English for 19 years, and have been the IE coach of our school's Speech and Debate team for the last 7 years. I have had students qualify for NSDA nationals in IE events in 2017, 2018, and 2019, 2020, and 2021. While coaching our team, I have had a student place in the top 60 at nationals in Dramatic Interpretation. 12th in the nation in Expository, and some of my students have claimed AL state championships in OO, Informative, and After Dinner Speaking. I have also had AL State Runners-up in DI and Duo. I enjoy contemporary pieces as much as old classics. I don't mind pieces with controversial themes, provided the topics are presented appropriately within the context of the piece.

I prefer to judge IE events, but am prepared to judge debate when needed. The following is what I prefer and/or look for when I judge debate events:

1. I am not a fan of spreading. If you speak so quickly that I am unable to flow your arguments, I will put my pen down and no longer judge you. Spreading is unnecessary for a well-crafted case.

2. Evidence is very important, and it should back up your case.

3. I will judge your case based on your use of evidence, direct clash, and speaking style. Did you prove your case, did you present the best case, and did you attack your opponent’s case?

After 4 years of judging in MS and at five National Tournaments, the most important advice I can give if I am selected to be your judge is:

*Be respectful of yourself, your opponent/fellow competitors, and your judges.  This includes being mindful of your time constraints, being considerate in your conversations/arguments/speeches, and being well prepared to present your case(s) and/or your piece(s). 

*Have fun!  You can take this tournament seriously, be well-prepared, and have a blast all at the same time.  Your time in high school will fly by, so no regrets, only memories!  

Good luck!