My name is Alyssa Kirby, and I debated PF for four years on the Sequoyah Speech and Debate Team. Nothing crazy as far as prefs go; I would say I'm a fairly technical judge. When it comes to the individual speeches, I don't have much preference (speed is fine, just make sure you speak LOUDLY and CLEARLY). Do try to have good sign posting because that helps me in judging. I'll be writing a lot so repetition and reiteration is much appreciated. If you don't say your framework in your first speech and your opponents bring one up that you don't like, please try and address it in first cross. Make sure you keep things civil in crossfire. A lot of your speaker points are going to come from that, so if you're rude/don't let other people talk/don't have any questions, I'll dock points. Humor is appreciated and encouraged but disrespect is NOT. I may give you higher points if you make a good (or not so good) pun. **Does not apply for online debates—Be sure to face me during crossfire and stand except for in grand. You aren't debating to get your opponents to vote for you, you're trying to win your judge over. Face me durning speeches.** I may look up from time to time, and some eye contact is always appreciated. Make sure you do a lot of weighing! You should never leave it up to your judge to decide what the most important argument is. Tell me what I should care about and why. It's really easy for me to vote for you if you emphasize weighing impacts in your last two speeches and quantify. Additionally, if you want me to flow your argument, include it in both summary and final focus. If you don't, I will not consider it while voting. I'm not super familiar with progressive debate, so please refrain because you probably won’t win off of it. Please keep your own time. It's also probably a good idea for you to keep your opponents' times as well. If your time ends during a speech, you can definitely finish your sentence, and I won't take off points as long as you're not abusing your time. Same goes for cross if you are asked a question as the timer goes off; just answer quickly.

If you have questions about my decisions don't hesitate to email me: alyssa.kirby.2291@gmail.com

Hey debaters, I'm Wesley. I've debated 2 1/2 years of Lincoln-Douglas and a 1/2 year in Public Forum for Sequoyah High School.

Clash is cool and fun to judge.

Weighing is cool too. A lack of weighing is very uncool. Do not be uncool. I need comparative analysis: explain why your impacts or theories are more important.

Speaks: They are going to be high. I'm a debater, I don't like giving low Speaks unless you're abusive or very unprepared. I don't generally give lower than 28. Ways to secure an easy 30 are to a.) be funny, b.) do a performance, or c.) impress me with your line by line (I will buy 30 speaks theory but it's usually a waste of your time).

Ways to get your speaks tanked: racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or ad hominem. Running Tricks or Friv Theory against a lay debater. Saying something that needs a trigger warning without a trigger warning.

--- LD Specific ---

If you're doing LD, that's a dub.

I've participated in Nat Circuit tournaments, so I know how to flow progressive arguments (Theory and Tricks, for example), but I'm more familiar with mildly progressive arguments (CPs, PICs, Ks). I'm not very experienced when it comes to Kritiks, so if you're going to run one, make sure to weigh and frame exactly why I should be voting for you.

Prefs: (1 is best, 4 is worst)

1 - LARP, Trad, Legitimate Theory

2 - Ks

3 - PICs and Friv Theory

4 - Tricks

Misc:

LD is special because it isn't always about cost-benefit analysis. Philosophies and frameworks belong in LD, and I always enjoy seeing them.

Make sure to weigh at the end. I want to know why your surviving impacts are more important.

That's it. Good luck, have fun.

--- PF Specific ---

Weigh. Weighing is good and will win you rounds. Not weighing is bad and will lose you rounds.

Collapse. Do not try to bring up everything from your first 8 minutes of debate in the 3 minute Summary.

Things I Dislike:

- Being rude, disrespectful, or otherwise attacking your opponents personally.

- Being abusive, ie. bringing up new arguments late in the round.

For PF, please have a lot of evidence, make sure your statistics are clear and your impacts are comprehensible & link well into the argument.

--- BQ Specific ---

I prefer a lot of clash. Have a couple of sources, but overall have fun with the prompt and make sure your arguments are clear and legible. If you go into round with 0 sources and manage to win, I'll give you 30 Speaks and call your coach to tell them how talented you are.

Update for judging: Been out of debate for a while now, learning the topic lit as I go. This means be clearer on args for evidence or stuff like acronyms. Don't make the mistake of thinking I know what you know. That being said, if you're gonna spread start slower than normal and don't max yourself out.

Note for Online: Try and use a good mic if you can, and slow down on analytics. Send an email chain anyways (jaypatel26687@gmail.com)

I've done both national circuit and traditional debate, so I'm cool with either style. That being said, I do like circuit debate more. Be accommodating plz and don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. because that's bad and I will talk to your coach.

I'm cool with anything, run what you want and make arguments that you want to make. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible and on that note, I won't do work for you. If the argument is important, address it as such, if [x] is critical, tell me why. Impact and warrant out arguments, far too many debaters aren't doing this. AND PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WEIGH BETWEEN ARGS. Other than that, if you have specific questions ask me in round and I'd be more than happy to answer them.

Quick list of what debate I'm good at judging:

1 - LARP/Trad

2 - K (like the generics (i.e cap, biopower, fem, etc...))

3 - Theory/T (Run it if you want, but just know the more frivolous it is, the more I'll lower my threshold for responses)

4 - K (the less known ones are fine, but you're gonna have to explain the warrants and links a lot more and I mean A LOT more, if I can't understand the K or its implications in round, I won't vote on it. I don't want to discourage you from it, but be wary.)

5 - Trix (I've run them and I know what they are and can evaluate them, I just don't like to)

How to get high speaks:

Be clear, be funny (work in a good South Park reference and I'll add a point)

"If you are clearly better than your opponent and it is obvious that you are winning the round, please, dear lord, do not use all of your speech time just because you have the time- win the round and sit down so we can have a discussion and make it more educational than just you repeating conceded arguments for 13 minutes." ~ Stephen Scopa

How to get low speaks:

Be a dick

The Long Version (written while I had absolutely many, many better things to do)

Trad

- Unless you have some weird framework links/implications 99% of trad rounds end with util v util frameworks where far too much time is spent. If you realize you have the same or even similar framework as your opponent, it's fine to drop a framework. I feel like people don't really know this, but it saves time for you.

- Substance > V/VC Debate

LARP

- CPs, ADV/DAs, Plans, PICs, etc. this is my bread and butter and what I used to do a lot of while I debated.

- These rounds are won with good evidence AND good analysis, one will not cover for the other, but that being said Evidence > Analytics

- WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH

- Be smart in your rebuttals, proper time allocation and a good collapse are key

- I'll listen to impact turns, use them well

Kritiks

- I'll likely have some familiarity with the lit base (refer to the examples above) but don't assume I know everything. It's your job to make things clear for me. If I can't understand it, I won't vote on it

- Contextualize the links to the aff, generic stuff like "state bad" isn't horrible, but just put the effort in and find a specific link

- ROB v FW weighing is super important here, win this you'll probably win the round

Theory/T

- Defaults: Competing interps, drop the debater, rvis, fairness and education are voters

- The more frivolous the shell, the lower my bar for responses (imo just use a good reasonability dump and the shell should lose every time)

- Send counter interps/interps, and slow down for standard names

- Do some standard weighing please

- Paragraph theory is lame :(

Trix

- Ehhhh..... I don't want to judge this, but I will if I have to

- Make sure all your stuff is delineated and just admit to what you're doing (it's easier on all of us) instead of being shifty is cross

- Extensions are gonna have to be really good, explain the implication of x spike in the speech and make sure you're slow enough that I can flow it

I've competed in highschool LD for roughly 2 years and Public Forum for 2 years, and this is my first year judging. I tend to weigh arguments primarily on strength of contentions, clash, and, especially for LD, values/criterions. Depth of research is something I always love to see. When it comes to speaking, I will always appreciate a debater who speaks with ennunciation and clarity. Good luck to all debaters competing, I'm excited to see your arguments!

Current LD Debater and Former Varsity PF Debater

Spread only if on shared speech doc

Because of online debating, I encourage you to send your cases - ryantshaw4@gmail.com

No Prog unless links are specific to the topic

Judge Philosophy

Name: Lisa Willoughby

Current Affiliation: Midtown High School formerly Henry W. Grady High School

Conflicts: AUDL teams

Debate Experience: 1 year debating High School 1978-79, Coaching High School 1984-present

How many rounds have you judged in 2012-13: 50, 2013-2014: 45, 2015-2016: 25, 2016-17 15, 2017-2018: 30, 2018-19: 30, 2019-20:10, 2020-21: 40, 2021-2022: 35, 2022-2023:6

send evidence e-mail chain to quaintt@aol.com

I still view my self as a policy maker unless the debaters specify a different role for my ballot. I love impact comparison between disadvantages and advantages, what Rich Edwards used to call Desirability. I don’t mind the politics disad, but I am open to Kritiks of Politics.

I like Counterplans, especially case specific counterplans. I certainly think that some counterplans are arguably illegitimate; for example, I think that some international counterplans are utopian, and arguably claim advantages beyond the reciprocal scope of the affirmative, and are, therefore, unfair. I think that negatives should offer a solvency advocate for all aspects of their counterplan, and that multi-plank cps are problematic. I think that there are several reasons why consultation counterplans, and the States CP could be unfair. I will not vote unilaterally on any of these theoretical objections; the debaters need to demonstrate for me why a particular counterplan would be unfair.

I have a minor in Philosophy, and love good Kritik debate. Sadly, I have seen a lot of bad Kritik debate. I think that K debaters need to have a strong understanding of the K authors that they embrace. I really want to understand the alternative or the role of my ballot. I have no problem with a K Aff, but am certainly willing to vote on Framework/T against a case that does not have at least a clear advocacy statement that I can understand. I am persuadable on "AFF must be USFG."

I like Topicality, Theory and Framework arguments when they are merited. I want to see fair division of ground or discourse that allows both teams a chance to prepare and be ready to engage the arguments.

I prefer substance to theory; go for the theoretical objections when the abuse is real.

As for style, I love good line-by-line debate. I adore evidence comparison, and argument comparison. I am fairly comfortable with speed, but I like clarity. I have discovered that as I get older, I am very comfortable asking the students to "clear." I enjoy humor; I prefer entertaining cross-examinations to belligerent CX. Warrant your claims with evidence or reasoning.

Ultimately, I demand civility: any rhetoric, language, performance or interactions that demean, dehumanize or trivialize fellow debaters, their arguments or judges would be problematic, and I believe, a voting issue.

An occasional interruption of a partner’s speech or deferring to a more expert partner to answer a CX question is not a problem in my view. Generally only one debater at a time should be speaking. Interruptions of partner speeches or CX that makes one partner merely a ventriloquist for the other are extremely problematic.

Clipping cards is cheating. Quoting authors or evidence out of context, or distorting the original meaning of a text or narrative is both intellectually bankrupt and unfair.

There is no such thing as one ideal form or type of debate. I love the clash of ideas and argumentation. That said, I prefer discourse that is educational, and substantive. I want to walk away from a round, as I often do, feeling reassured that the policy makers, educators, and citizens of the future will seek to do a reasonable and ethical job of running the world.

For Lincoln Douglas debates:

I am "old school" and feel most comfortable in a Value/Criterion Framework, but it is your debate to frame. Because I judge policy frequently, I am comfortable with speed but generally find it is needless. Clarity is paramount. Because of the limited time, I find that I typically err AFF on theoretical objections much more than I would in a policy round.

I believe that any argument that an AFF wants to weigh in the 2AR needs to be in the 1AR. I will vote against new 2AR arguments.

I believe that NEG has an obligation to clash with the AFF. For this reason, a counterplan would only be justified in a round when the AFF argues for a plan; otherwise a counterplan is an argument for the AFF. The NEG must force a decision, and for that reason, I am not fond of what used to be called a 'balance neg.'