Heyo!

I debated in public forum throughout high school and now compete in BP with the University of Utah. I adore PF and more so debaters who are trying new things/ exploring debate. In terms of paradigm, I vote on clean debates. Bring forward relevant arguments but also clash with your opponents.

As always, be respectful but passionate. Feel free to ask for any clarifications before round, until then!

-Abigail

I did pf all 4 years of highschool and went to nats and the TOC, so I’m pretty familiar with most arguments. I will weigh anything if you give me a reason. If you wanna do theory or K that’s cool as long you give me voters at the end. Voters are really the most important thing for me, so collapse on what you’re winning.

I’m fine with speed.

If you get a concession during cross-ex, make sure to bring it up in a speech as I don't judge cross for anything but speaks.

Make sure to extend. If you talk about it in the 1ar then drop it till FF I’m not gonna weigh it.

Framework debates in pf can get confusing and are usually a wash so proceed with caution

if you have the first rebuttal please don't go over your own case after you rebut your opponents. You have nothing to refute, there has been no ink on your side yet. Use your time rebutting your opponents.

My BIGGEST pet peeve is bringing up new arguments in 2nd summary or FF. I won’t weigh it and I’ll dock you speaks. Please don’t do it :(

I’ll disclose if I can and give verbal critiques if you want and time allows

If you make a formal Evidence Violation where I have to decide the round early based on 1 card it had better be a very flagrant violation ie them altering cards, saying the opposite of what the card says, something severe and manipulative. If it's just paraphrasing that you dont like bring it up in a speech. I have dropped most of the people who have made the evidence violation so far, I don't like to do judge intervention and I prefer the debaters just solve the issue on their own. It had better be a serious and intentionally deceptive violation for me to drop a team based off it.

Speaks breakdown

30- you should final

29- almost no mistakes

28- still good but some fumbles

27- average

26- lots of mistakes, unclear

25- hard to flow

<24- you said something offensive

If you have any other questions feel free to ask in round.

I've been competing for 8 years, high school + college speech and debate. I've done pretty much every IE event as well as Congress, NFA-LD, British Parliamentary (kinda like worlds), IPDA and NPDA (parli) debates. My paradigm explains the default biases I have when judging, but I'm more than prepared to drop those assumptions if you make an argument that I should.

LD/Policy: I don't have a preference between 'traditional' and 'progressive' LD, but I do ask that you adapt to how your opponent is debating. Most of my experience is with limited prep debate, so I believe cards help your argument but do not make it for you. If you can't explain your argument without saying "it's all in the Friedman 20 card", that's not gonna help you out much. I will buy persuasive arguments that aren't carded, and I will reject an unpersuasive carded argument, so don't think that more evidence means you automatically win the debate.

I generally tend to prefer probability to magnitude when weighing impacts.

Spread at your own risk! (that part is bold for a reason) If your speech is unintelligible word salad, I won't be able to flow everything, and I'm more likely to be persuaded by arguments against your case. I don't want to have to rely on reading the doc myself to know what's going on, so you should only speak as fast as you can enunciate; if words are slurring into one another, that's too fast. I believe that the use of excessive speed to exclude less experienced/speed capable debaters is a scourge upon technical debate and am very willing to vote on speed bad arguments. If you intend to read your case faster than average speaking speed, it would really help to ask your opponents and the judge to say "clear" or "slow" if they're overwhelmed.

I usually won't vote on T unless you collapse to it exclusively, and I am not generally persuaded by potential abuse arguments, but I'll buy potential abuse if there's no argument against it. I like using T as a strategy (time waster, distraction, link to disads/K, etc.) but if you're arguing that the purpose of T is to check back on abuse, then voting on it without demonstrated abuse cheapens the effectiveness of it. I love a good kritik, but I don't love when people run kritiks they are obviously unfamiliar with and cannot explain in lay terms. I won't automatically vote down a K aff but I think they're kinda cheesy and you're probably better off running a policy aff in front of me.

Don't let the debate get toxic. Racism, sexism, queerphobia, etc. is not acceptable in the debate space. Don't be a debate bro.

Congress: Don't read off a prewritten speech but notes are encouraged Congress is definitionally an extemporaneous speaking event. If you are unable to keep the round interesting with new arguments and lots of clash, expect to lose points. If the debate is stale, I welcome any and all attempts to previous question. If you're a competent PO, you'll finish in the top half of the ballot. You shouldn't say something is unconstitutional without saying exactly which part of the constitution it violates and why! This is congressional debate and the US constitution is a necessary paradigm to abide by, but if the Bush administration can come up with a creative argument to defend torture under the Constitution, you can figure something out. Know your role in the round. The first speakers on each side should construct the debate. Subsequent speakers should focus on rebuttal. Late-round speakers should try to crystallize the round, weigh impacts, etc. If you give a killer constructive as the last speech in the round, you won't be ranked very highly.

IEs: The time limit for memorized events is ten minutes, not 10:30. The grace period exists to give you a buffer in case you go over, not an extra 30 seconds of material. This is doubly true if you choose to time yourself or use time signals! It's one thing if you go over without knowing your time, but if you go over while you're looking at a timer, that's pretty clear time limit abuse and your ranking will reflect that.

EXT:I know what 'proper' extemp structure looks like, but I also feel like that structure doesn't always make for the best speech. If you feel like your speech is improved by modifying the traditional structure, I'm not going to dock you for that. Sources are good, but I prefer quality over quantity. As long as you have a few in there I'm not going to give you a lower rank because someone else had more. Using humor is a quick and easy way to get yourself towards the top of my ballot.

Kritiks: I'm familiar with critical literature, but I want the alternative to be explained well because it creates better debate about the method of the alternative. If the kritik literature is not very well known you should create a thesis level argument to provide clarity about the kritik debate.

K Affs: Everything said on Kritiks applies here as well and you should also clearly explain why you reading a k aff is justified.

Theory/T: I think that theory is a legitimate check for abuse and prefer if you're running it strategically and not just as a timeskew. Make sure that your voters are terminalized, I don't want to just be told to "vote for education and fairness," tell me why those matter.

DA's: I'm not a huge fan of linear disadvantages but I will still vote for them. On Uniqueness I'm more likely to believe that uniqueness doesn't overwhelm the link if you give me a direction of the status quo instead of the status of it (For example, on an Econ DA it's better to say the economy is improving slowly rather than saying the economy is amazing).

Debate should be fun, don't be a dick.

I am a former public official (Fire Chief and Fire Marshall) who has debated and written policy, administrative code, and law in front of city, county, in court, and with state legislators. I enjoy a good discussion and always love proving my case.

Event Paradigms:

Public Forum: Some debaters have the tendency to try to cram all the rounds' arguments into the 2-minutes summary and final focus speeches. Just narrow down the big points and talk at length about each of them. Don't speak over each other during crossfire and be courteous.

For all debates, you can talk fast but please don't spread. You can talk as fast as possible, and I'll be able to gage what you're saying, but please don't get to the point where full words aren't being said.

Lastly, make sure to respect each other. We're here to learn and grow as debaters, so please don't ruin that experience for one another.

You the best of the best when it comes to student athletes.

All in all, have fun! Excited to judge you all!

I am of the position that it is your debate, and you should do with it what you want. I do not automatically reject arguments based on the type of argument. There are a couple of things that are important to me as a critic that you should know...

DON'T use speed to exclude your opponent. No one (including me) should have to ask you to slow or clear multiple times. In general, I'm not a fan of speeches that spread the entire time. Just talk to me and make arguments... it's better for both of us.

DON'T be rude.

DON'T assume that I will fill in holes for you. It is your job to give me complete arguments with reasons why they win the round.

DO provide impacts and weigh them.

DO be clear on how you would like me to evaluate the round.

DO give me proven abuse on T. I like T, but not if it is incomplete.

DO affirm the topic in ***some*** way. If you are rejecting, I need you to be EXTREMELY clear on why that is fair to your opponent (it probably isn't, especially in LD). There are many ways to affirm, and I am interested in all ways.

I did pf for four years in high school both in Utah and on the national circuit. Competitive success doesn't equate to a good judge, but if you care about it I did relatively well.

Second speaking team: All frontlining must be in second rebuttal for me to evaluate it, if I notice a totally new argument in second summary I will not vote on it.

Don't bring up new stuff in final focus, please. It's frustrating for all of us.

Argue what you'd like, I'll flow it. I'll only evaluate it if you give me a warrant, though.

I can handle any speed you'd like to debate at. However, speaking fast does not make you a better debater. Please enunciate if you're going to speak quickly, and know that I would rather not be flowing this fast and it's significantly harder to understand over zoom.

Lean on the side of over-explaining things, I don't know this topic.

Don't talk over each other please! It's hard to understand on zoom.

If you have any other questions about what I'll evaluate, or what I'll judge, feel free to ask me in round.