Hey, I am a graduated debater of LD.

Email: namireddy.edu@gmail.com

I like to see traditional cases at novice tournaments, but I am okay with non-traditional if done correctly.

Give roadmaps before each speech. (except 1AC)

I like to see framework debate and connection of contentions/arguments back to value and criterion.

I am not a fan of spreading (speaking extremely fast), but I will not count off if I can still understand you.

I will be keeping time, but I suggest you do, too.

Signposting is very important.

Voters help me weigh the round.

Most importantly, keep the debate clean. At the end of the day, debate is meant to encourage critical thinking and improve real life skills. Let's do our best and have fun whilst in the round.

If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask me. I am more than happy to answer them. Looking forward to see you guys do amazing.

Jordan Berry - Loveless Academic Magnet Program High School

Hello!

I have been a coach and judge since 2015. Most debaters over the years categorize me as a traditional L/D judge. My chief weighing mechanism is usually framework (my undergraduate degree is in philosophy), but I can be persuaded to the contrary. I have no value hierarchy. I strive to keep personal views and ballot intervention away from my RFD. I will evaluate only those arguments brought up by the debaters.

Speed is an issue for me. This is primarily an education and communication activity. I highly doubt either Lincoln or Douglas themselves were spreading, and I've never seen spreading in any real-life situation aside from episodes of "Storage Wars." I do flow the round (though not cross), but "winning the flow" isn't the same as winning the round in some cases; this event is supposed to be persuasive and accessible, not a checklist of responses and replies. Thus, I always roll my eyes when one of my debaters complains about "lay" judges: in crafting a case/round, they should receive as much consideration as that ex-policy debater.

Other issues for me: do be respectful. Do engage meaningfully with the resolution. Do be honest. Do have fun.

Break a leg!

jordan.berry@mps.k12.al.us

P.S. All this extinction stuff is just debaters trolling, right?

Kiarra (Key-Era) Pronouns They/Them.

You can add me to the email chain {Kdbroadnax@gmail.com} To help me keep track of email chains. Put your team code and Round number in the subject section please and thank you.

Debated at Samford University (Policy) Currently a Coach with SpeakFirst (PF and LD)

Things to do. (Policy)

1. Signpost, do line-by-line, and use analytics.

2. Speed. Go as fast as you want. If you're unclear, I will look at you very confused because I will not know what to flow.

3. Kicking {Arguments, not other debaters} You should be kicking out of things. I will give .3 on speaks if it's creative. I LOVE a good mic drop moment.

Things to do. (PF)

1. Use analytics. they are super useful and make the debate more interesting

2. Speed. Go as fast as you want. I did do policy but If you're unclear, it will reflect in your speaker points.

3. Collapse down. You are not winning everything and we both know that.

Things to do. (LD)

1. Signpost, do line-by-line, and use analytics.

2. Speed is fine. Just be clear.

3. Put me on the email chain if you make one. If I call for cards at the end of the round and then have to wait for you to set up a chain I will doc speaker points. Please just set it up before the round starts.

4. The affirmative should defend the resolution. Yes, every time.

5. Make me think. Challenge the status quo. Run wacky K's. I won't always vote on it but I will enjoy it.

6. About number 5. If you are going to run a K or something similar. Please put a trigger warning if there is mention of sensitive topics and mention them before the round starts. It's uncommon in this climate but it would greatly be appreciated.

Please, do not do these (Policy):

1. Yelling, Being passionate about your case is super cool, but yelling at me will make me not want to vote for you.

2. Introducing Harmful Partnerships into the Debate space. I get that debate is a stress-inducing activity but your partner is there with you for a reason. You should use them. I am fine with partners interacting during a speech. Ex: Your partner handing you a card or their technology to use to read a card off of, or handing you their flow. But if your partner is spoon-feeding you, your speech.

3. Demanding a Judge Kick. Nope. No. No, thank you. if you want to kick out of something then do so.

Please, do not do these (PF):

1. Excessively call for cards. I get it. Sometimes you need to see cards but calling for 5 cards per speech is a bit much.

2. Being rude during CX. I get sassy sometimes but screaming, not letting debaters answer or name-calling is unnecessary.

3. If you send a link (only a link) when an opponent calls for evidence. I'll doc speaks. If you send ME a link. ill vote you down. There are rules to this activity. You need to have CUT cards.

Please, do not do this ( LD):

1. Don't be a jerk. Not every debater is going to get your K. Chill.

DO NOT at any point compare ANYTHING to slavery, the holocaust, genocide, rape, etc.

I will vote you down.

Yay debate!

Jefferson State Community College: Speech and Debate Team - 2 years

LD Judge: 4 years

Speed: I am good with any speed as long as you are not spreading. If I cannot follow I will say "Clear" at which point I expect that you slow down, so I can flow the round properly.

PF:

-Do not spread. On a scale of 1-10 for speed I prefer somewhere around 6-7. I would prefer you to slow down or pause a tad for taglines for my flow. Also if you list 4-5 short points or stats in quick succession, I probably will miss one or two in the middle if you dont slow down.

-Arguments you go for should appear in all speeches. If your offense was not brought up in summary, I will ignore it in FF.

-I do not think cross is binding. It needs to come up in the speech. I do not flow cross, and as a flow judge that makes decisions based on my flow, it won't have much bearing on the round.

-At the least I think 2nd rebuttal needs to address all offense in round. Bonus points for collapsing case and completely frontlining the argument you do go for.

-Please time yourselves. My phone is constantly on low battery, so I'd rather not use it. If you want to keep up with your opponents' prep too to keep them honest then go ahead.

-In terms of some of the more progressive things- I haven't actually heard theory in a PF round but I hear it's a thing now. If your opponent is being abusive about something then sure, let me know, either in a formal shell or informal. Don't run theory just to run it though. Obviously, counterplans and plans are not allowed in PF so just don't.

-pet peeves:

1) Bad or misleading evidence. Unfortunately this is what I am seeing PF become. Paraphrasing has gotten out of control. Your "paraphrased" card better be accurate. If one piece of evidence gets called out for being miscut or misleading, then it will make me call in to question all of your evidence. If you are a debater that runs sketchy and loose evidence, I would pref me very high or strike me.

2) Evidence clash that goes nowhere. If pro has a card that says turtles can breathe through their butt and con has a card saying they cannot and that's all that happens, then I don't know who is right. In the instance of direct evidence clash (or even analytical argumentation clash) tell me why to prioritize your evidence over theirs or your line of thinking over theirs. Otherwise, I will consider the whole thing a wash and find something else to vote on.

3) Not condensing the round when it should be condensed. Most of the time it is not wise to go for every single argument on the flow. Sometimes you need to pick your battles and kick out of others, or risk undercovering everything.

LD:
So first, I primarily judge PF. This means my exposure to certain argument types is limited. I LOVE actually debating the resolution. Huge fan. I'm cool with DAs and CPs. Theory only if your opponent is being overly abusive (so no friv). If you are a K or tricks debater good luck. I know about the progressive things but since I primarily judge PF, my ability to evaluate it is very limited from experience. If you want to go for a K or something, I won't instantly drop you and I will try my best to flow and evaluate it in the round. But you will probably need to tweak it a little, slow down, and explain more how it is winning and why I should vote for it. I come from a traditional circuit, so the more progressive the round gets, the less capable I am of making a qualified decision.

I do not want you to flash your case to me. I want to flow it. If you read to point that it is unflowable then it is your loss. If I don't flow it, I cannot evaluate it and thus, cannot vote on it. Spreading in my opinion is noneducational and antithetical to skills you should be learning from this activity. Sorry, in the real world and your future career, spreading is not an acceptable practice to convince someone and get your point across.

Both:
Please signpost/roadmap- I hate when it is unclear where you are and I get bounced around the flow. Have fun and don't be overly aggressive.

My name is Jason Han.

Pronouns are he/him.

jasondhan72@gmail.com

I'd like to be in the email chain.

DISCLAIMER: 1) Assume I know nothing about the topic 2) Don't speak too fast, I no longer do debate and don't particularly practice listening to spreading or flowing in my student life 3) If something in the paradigm seems important, please ask because perhaps some of my opinions have changed.

For the Vestavia Novice Tournament

It's fine if you don't understand everything here. I want there to be good clash that's well signposted with you displaying that you know your opponents arguments and why they are wrong. Good impact calculus would be a very quick way for me to see why I should vote you up. Please don't be rude, especially in CX, because everyone here is new and I don't want anyone to be turned away from debate just because someone was mean at their first tournament. On the Framework level, take advantage of your framework cards to refute your opponent when necessary. Just for the sake of fairness, I won't weigh the arguments more progressive that DAs and CPs.

General

Tech over truth, this doesn't mean I like trix, but you do you. Do whatever you want during speeches and cross ex whether that means sitting or standing or like laying I guess, whatever makes you comfortable. Please be respectful of me, your opponent, and the building you're debating in.

Instant Drops

If you say anything offensive/racist/sexist or anything of the type, then i will immediately vote you down.

If you are dishonestly cutting, sourcing, or taglining (this is really common, but there's a little leeway so I wouldn't suggest going for this to much as like an evidence ethics argument and instead say no warrant or something like that) any evidence I will vote you down even if your opponent doesn't point it out. Don't just throw buzz words like evidence ethics without actually thinking it through.

Spreading

I'm fine with speed, but I need good articulation just like every other judge out there, and I want to be on the email chain. Please be clear and slow down for tag lines, sites, and probably analytics too (especially if you take those out of the speech doc). I will say "clear" if you are not enunciating enough or aren't loud enough for me to hear.

Misc

Cross-Ex is mostly binding, and I will pay attention. If you want me to write something down or take special notice of a contract you make just refer to me (either Jason or the judge)

I prefer if you just run prep down from 4 minutes. When people just set a timer for like 2 minutes, they just ask to use more time after those 2 minutes end and take like 15 seconds to set up another timer.

ROB

I'll default to choosing whoever debates the round better. I do consider myself to be in the role of an educator in the round so other ROB apply. However, as an educator, I will value fairness very highly, so if abuse happens, you'll need to have some extremely convincing weighing arguments or counterinterps.

Phil

I'm fine with any frameworks that you want to run. I like specific frameworks based on multiple links or syllogisms because they are usually applied more strategically in round, but Util is fine. FW debate should be well warranted, and I want good signposting and summarizing of your opponent's arguments so that I know you understand them.

Plans and Counterplans

For Aff, if you're not running a plan, I'm going to assume you are advocating the whole resolution as your plan unless you specifically say you are defending the resolution as a general principle instead. More specific plans can provide unique impacts and link chains, but I'm open to Topicality if you're opponent thinks that it's too specific or extra.

For Neg, I like having CPs. If not, I'm going to assume that you advocate for the Status Quo instead of the resolution. CPs have to be competitive with the Affirmative, otherwise, you'll be permed. For the status of counterplans, I'm ok with both 2 conditional in a normal round, although I'll still weigh theory arguments if Aff chooses to go for them. More than 2 conditional advocacies is much more sketchy and will warrant lower speaks at the least, but I will weigh it in the round if the Affirmative doesn't run theory or point out abuse, but if they do, you're gonna be on an uphill battle. The Affirmative gets to choose whether their perm is a test of competitiveness or another advocacy, so if you're running conditional, then you should beware.

Disadvantages and Advantages

I will weigh these. Unique arguments, link chains, and impacts would make me prefer these a lot more, not some stock link chain that somehow just escalates instantly to extinction. I really don't like the 1% probability of extinction means you have to vote for me argument. However, link chains to extinction that seem actually probable are fine. DAs and Ads can be really useful to create good impacts in a round, so I'm going to be looking for impact calculus and weighing.

Kritiks

I'm really like unique Kritiks, usually ones like Cap and Biopower are not that special. I don't read the lit much, so if you're going to run them, I want a good overview in the next speech. i still really like the arguments. Usually I default to Theory over K, but if you give me good reasons to think otherwise, I will weigh K over Theory. For the status of the Alt, it's the same as CPs but on identity K's a conditional Alt will come off as insincere to me which means lower speaks.

Theory

I normally weigh Theory over K. Interps should be specific and I want good clash on the standards and even voters if you decide to go for that. I'm fine with both Competing Interps and Reasonability, but I will say that I still have my own opinion and will be as objective as I can on Competing Interps. The brightline for Reasonability should be fair, and if the opponent convinces me it isn't, I will have to just drop Reasonability as a whole. For Competing Interps, if there is no in round abuse, you really have to articulate EXTREMELY well what type of abuse is justified and why that matters in a round with no actual abuse. Spikes are fine in the 1AC.

Truth Testing vs. Comparative Worlds

I default to Comparative Worlds, but you can advocate for either and I will choose whichever one has better argumentation.

Email: caitlynajones1@gmail.com

Pronouns: (she/her)

I have done no topic research. Assume I know nothing

I debated PF for 4 years

• If you want me to vote on it, it needs to be in the summary and the final focus

• Please don’t just yell cards at me. Some analysis please

• If there’s an evidence misconduct problem, I’d rather you point out the issues with your opponent’s interpretation of evidence during your speeches, but I’ll call for a card if you tell me to.

• Any concessions in cross need to be in a speech for me to flow it

• Don't Spread at me. If I need a case doc to follow you, it's too fast.

• I'm not flowing anything after the 10-second grace period

Give roadmaps before each speech

I like to see framework debate and connection of contentions/arguments back to value and criterion.

I am not a fan of spreading (speaking extremely fast), but I will not count off if I can still understand you.

I will be keeping time, but I suggest you do, too.

Voters help me weigh the round.

Hey, I am a graduated debater of LD.

I like to see traditional cases at novice tournaments, but I am okay with non-traditional if done correctly.

Give roadmaps before each speech.

I like to see framework debate and connection of contentions/arguments back to value and criterion.

I am not a fan of spreading (speaking extremely fast), but I will not count off if I can still understand you.

I will be keeping time, but I suggest you do, too.

Signposting is very important.

Voters help me weigh the round.