I debated in the mid 1980's, almost exclusively inside South Dakota and coached some HS debate while I was attending college in Minnesota. I consider myself a policymaker, weighing advantages vs disadvantages but I will certainly vote on stock issues in the real absence of inherency, solvency or topicality.

I know debate started changing dramatically in the late 70's and I was in the first wave of spread 1.0, almost laughable when compared to today's spread on the circuit and collegiate level. I believe spread and K's pushed policy debate to an extreme that did require action to be taken with the creation of Public Forum. The speed of today's public forum feels a lot like regional debate in the Dakota's in the 1980's. Quick, but nothing close to crazy. I am making it somewhat of a personal mission to keep us from tipping over the edge in PF.

I outlined my thought on judging policy above.

In terms of judging PF's, I am looking for clash -- real clash and sound logical reasoning and quality extension evidence that makes your case. I consider K's and counterplans out of hand in PF debate. I also value exceptional speaking and rhetorical excellence. I love speakers that can change my perception of issues, speakers who possess a passion for the topic and the activity. Instead of droning on like most other speakers on a typical weekend, find a way to be unique and memorable. These qualities are as important as research and argumentation.

I occasionally judge LD -- it also has been impacted by the spread/K revolution in many parts of the country. I am looking for many of the same skills I'm looking for in PF. I also appreciate the debaters who really try to walk me through the weighing of the competing values and what should take precedent with a particular resolution.

I felt compelled to return to debate as an assistant coach all these years later (I continued judging throughout most of my adult life) because I am convinced that high school speech and debate does more to prepare kids for college and the professional world more than any high school or college course. Critical listening, organizing your ideas into a coherent message, learning sportsmanship and how to win and lose as a team are invaluable life skills.

On a scale of 1/10 for speed, I would consider myself about a 5. In policy debate, on a scale of 1/10 for openness to alternative argumentation, I would be about a 4-5 there as well. Quite open to topicality, a little less to counterplans, and challenging to get my ballot if your entire case hinges on a series of Kritik arguments.

Debated policy in high school and one year at UK. I'm open to anything as long as you are comfortable with it. Just to clear it up for the NSDA tournament, I'm okay with speed and all that. If you have any specific questions feel free to ask!

I have very little knowledge on this years topic so do your thing with that in mind.

Email---sulaiman.asif.jamal@gmail.com

LD -

I am a freshman in college this year and did LD for three years in high school. I am more traditional for framework and arguments, but if you decide to run something more applicable to circuit style, I don't care as long as you explain it. Please explain to me why your framework is the way that I should judge the round - I don't just want to hear that your framework is better than your opponent's, I want to hear why your framework is the best way to reach morality as shown specifically through your contentions. I will vote on framework first. I will also vote on the flow, so be careful in dropping arguments. I can handle speed on the flow as long as you are coherent; if I can't understand you, I won't flow it. I sincerely appreciate sign posting, please don't make me guess where I'm supposed to flow an argument. Finally, please weigh things. Tell me why your impact is bigger or why your impact is more pertinent on the timeline.

PF -

I didn't do PF in high school and have only watched a few rounds, so please be conscious that I am less familiar with the structure and the style of arguments in PF. Same thing goes for sign posting, speed, and weighing. If a framework is presented, I will also vote on the contention level through the weighing mechanism I decide to vote on. I will lean towards impact calc in voting in PF, so please explain to me what the impacts are, why they are the most immediate threat, and how your plan actually resolves those issues/reduces the horrendous scary numbers you're presenting. Please be polite, I don't like the fact that both of you get to ask questions in CX but I will be less inclined to listen to you if you are rude to an opponent in CX.

I can flow and follow arguments, but a simple FF always helps!

Please try at least a little.

he/him/his

University of South Dakota

email - pastianwork@gmail.com put me on the chain

Crytpo Topic -

i work for a stock firm as a crypto consultant, do with this what you will.

General -

Tech>>>>>>truth

I like good spreading and if you can do it, please do

I went to aberdeen central high school and had four wonderful years there. I did everything from interp to policy to extemp to oratory to inform to pufo, I can keep up. I know a lot about all of those listed above and will be able to judge to the best of my ability. I am a Three time NSDA National Qualifier, and TOC qualifer, I've been around, and i probably will be for a bit.

I am pretty well educated on most subjects and it will be hard to sneak one past me, but it also makes life easier when it comes to names, stats, etc. I can probably see right through your cap since I have probably pulled the same thing. That being said, I will not intervene on you capping unless your opponent tells me that you are, you should be telling me how to write my ballet.

I know all debate jargon, go wild.

Be abusive, win at the means you feel you can win at. You wanna play music during prep? Lit. But be nice and do not name call etc, I like aggressiveness but not bullying.

I lean pretty left and if that is an issue, strike me. I will vote for anything as long as it makes sense and is not complete cap.

Be funny, tell jokes, use analogies, make me laugh and you will automatically get a bump in speaks. Debate is supposed to be fun, make it that way.

Items that make me laugh include - Lakers, Warriors, Astros, Vikings, 49ers, Saints, and Bruins Slander, mentioning the rapper Future, and making fun of public fourm.

I will not or ever vote on... RVIs, Condo/Dispo, and Abuse. Be abusive as you want, thats debate, it is your opponents job to argue it. You bring 17 arguments to the flow I expect them to be answered by your opponent but you also need to extend and properly handle them.

Do not saying anything out the pocket, homophobic, trans-phobic, sexist, racist, xenophobic or anything of the sorts. I grew up in south dakota, it is not fun for what some people have to go through, and if you are like that to your opponent or partner, you will be down voted instantly.

Asking me if i disclose will result in .5 loss of speaks automatically, ill decide if I want to or not, asking me if i do will cause me to say no, even if i was planning on it. Most of the time i will disclose and give feedback. If you want to disagree with me go ahead, you have my email, insult me, say you do not agree, get your rage out, just do not do it in the round. i will probably agree with what you are saying since i did debate once

Tldr: have fun and ill flow n follow, just do not be dumb

Policy -

I am a 10 on speed, signpost and you will be just fine, if you do not sign post. I will be slightly annoyed and make faces to show as a such. As someone who practiced their speed and mastered it, I like seeing those who mastered it aswell, that being said, if you cannot clearly spread, don't, I will not dock you if you do not talk fast enough, but I will dock you for talking too fast.

I will vote anything that is not stupid. Arguments I find stupid - Condo/Dispo, some inround discourse Ks, Meme arguments, and Actor CPs.

I flow CX and think it is important for argument develping and using it as a tool in your arsenal to clown your opponents.

I tend to lean on a good CP with a mutual exclusivity NB with a sick DA, T, GOOD discourse Ks (IE - Security), Stock issues, politics DAs. I want offense, offense, offense, i want you to make your oppentent pay for waking up and having to debate you with the offense you put on the flow.

Notions I carry with me into the round -

Presumption = Neg. Trying to change of this idea is an uphill battle and you will have an easier time trying to convince me that JR Smith is the greatest basketball player of all time. Do not waste your time on trying to dispute this.

3nr'ing = 0 speaks. Hold the L like a champ and stop complaining, you are just annoying me cuh.

I am not that familiar with the current topic so keep jargon to a low and explain explain explain, and you will get my ballot.

Go wild, I wanna see wacky DAs and CPs, and PLEASE PLEASE run circumvention neg, and see if the aff can answer it since there is one way and one way only to do it (which they probably will not do lmao)

Public Fourm

Go wild lol, Spread, read plans, be abusive, Read theory.

The more you make me laugh in CX the more likely you are to convince me.

Living = Good, Presumption = Neg, death = bed. Trying to change of these ideas is an uphill battle and you will have an easier time trying to convince me that JR Smith is the greatest basketball player of all time. Do not waste your time on trying to dispute any of this.

3nr'ing = 0 speaks n me talking to your coach. Hold the L like a champ and stop complaining.

Literally just do not suck and you will get my ballot, win by any means you need, no rules.

Flow judge

LD

I know very little about Traditional LD, but Circuit LD is what I know best, I am well versed in it, and philosophy as a whole.

Unlike Policy, if you can convince me death good, that is not a total uphill battle.

Ill be able to keep up with pretty much everything, I lean HEAVILY more on tech as stated above but Framework debate is not for me, I will be looking more on the basis of the contention level.

If you want to CPs, DAs, Theory Shells, Ks, I am your judge, I will be able to buy any scenario you give me as long as you can explain it lol.

I would prefer you email me if you spread due to my lesser knowledge of LD.

IEs

Be the best speaker whether it be a performance piece, information or whatever, just be the best. Talk pretty and do not be dumb lol

I am most familiar with Extemp, IX is my category of choice so I will be able to keep up very well, that being said i will see through any lies, just be smart about them. I want content content content.

tldr - do not suck, lol.

Flow.Delivery.

I debated Lincoln Douglas for all four years of high school. One of the biggest things a debater should do in order to win is adapt to judge preferences... Here are mine,

1) I’m a big framework guy, does that mean if all you win is framework will you win the round? Absolutely not. If you don’t have a framework at the end of the round though it’s going to be difficult to win my vote. I’m a big fan of framework because it makes every contention level argument easier to weigh. FW turns are one of my favorite arguments and if done right will do a lot towards gaining my ballot

2) On the contention level I need sign posting and you need to directly address sub points not just contention headings.... Don’t get lazy on me now :)! Also, like framework I love a good turn on the contention level and I also love direct clash of arguments from both cases. My biggest advice is to be articulate and concise on the contention level.

3) I’m a fan of faster paced debates. Does this mean spread your opponent out of the water..... nope. I can handle most speeds but don’t get out of hand, slow down on tags, explanations, and transitions.

4) If you’re debating in South Dakota with me in the back of the room... Avoid policy arguments plz :)

5) Finally, I need to see respectfulness during the debate. Yes you can still be savage in cross-x but that doesn’t mean be rude.... There’s a difference. If you ever call your opponent dumb or stupid you will lose the round.

6) Finally, if you ever see me make facial expressions during a round don’t get nervous. After debating for so many years you learn it’s hard to control them sometimes. Odds are you’re doing just fine :)

Hopefully this helps y’all out, rock on ballers!

I am a public forum judge...not policy. Organization and presentation are the keys to a winning round. Fast speaking will get you nowhere; and may cost you a round if the round is close.

Fancy jargon will not gain you any points, nor will nasty crossfires. And please don't use off-the-clock roadmaps. 'Fancy' frameworks won't gain you any points, nor will off-the-wall cases.

Just debate the resolution; be organized; have a good time; good luck.

Speed

Rapid conversational

I prefer quality arguments over quantity of arguments. Debate is educational; if your strategy is to spread the other team in the Rebuttal, that doesn't seem like you are trying to promote education. Being able to talk faster does not equate to being a better debater. That being said, I am not unreasonable; if you have to speak faster in the summaries to cover everything the other team put out, that is acceptable.

Theory/Kritik

I more than welcome you to use your speech time to advocate for any issues you believe in and to educate the people in the round; I am just not likely to give you the ballot for that.

Tips

I like to flow as much as I possibly can. So, if I am not writing anything down during your speeches, you are either not being clear in your argumentation or you have spent too much time covering the point; it is best to move on. Because I like to keep a detailed flow, I also appreciate a debater who is well organized in their signposting.

When I am thinking, I often make a very grumpy looking face. Don’t think I am in disagreement with what you are saying because of this.

In public forum, I believe that most summary speeches drop excessive amounts of arguments against their own case. If you are able to actually defend your case and respond to what the other team said in the previous speeches, you are much more likely to win. If time allows and you are able to do so, I wouldn’t mind a line-by-line of both cases in the summary speech. On the same note, if the other team does drop key arguments on case, these are easy wins in my book; please bring them up.

For the final focus, you should select two or three main voting issues. The last 15-20 seconds of the speech should be spent giving me impact calc and telling me what the Pro world vs. the Con world looks like. I also don't mind an overview at the top if that works better for you.

Roadmaps are off the clock for me

If you ask me to call for evidence for it to be evaluated, I will.

Please don't try and avoid giving the other team evidence by saying your partner will do it after the cross. I believe evidence transparency is a huge part of the debate, try to be as upfront as possible.

I can tell the difference between someone who is confident and standing their ground, and someone who is using rudeness as a way to make it look like they know more than they do. If being rude is part of your pathos as a debater, I don't think you're doing it right.

Policy-I have debated it before. I do not judge it often. I do not coach it. Most likely, I am not familiar with the topic. Policy maker.

LD- I have not debated it before. I do not judge it often. I do not coach it. Most likely, I am not familiar with the topic. Good luck.