For email chains: danbagwell@gmail.com

I was a Policy debater at Samford / GTA at Wake Forest, now an assistant coach at Mountain Brook. I’ve increasingly moved into judging PF and LD, which I enjoy the most when they don’t imitate Policy.

I’m open to most arguments in each event - feel free to read your theory, critiques, counterplans, etc., as long as they’re clearly developed and impacted. Debate is up to the debaters; I'm not here to impose my preferences on the round.

All events

• Speed is fine as long as you’re clear. Pay attention to nonverbals; you’ll know if I can’t understand you.

• Bad arguments still need answers, but dropped args are not auto-winners – you still need to extend warrants and explain why they matter.

• If prep time isn’t running, all activity by all debaters should stop.

• Debate should be fun - be nice to each other. Don’t be rude or talk over your partner.

Public Forum

• I’m pretty strongly opposed to paraphrasing evidence - I’d prefer that debaters directly read their cards, which should be readily available for opponents to see. That said, I won’t just go rogue and vote on it - it’s still up to debaters to give convincing reasons why that’s either a voting issue or a reason to reject the paraphrased evidence. Like everything else, it’s up for debate.

• Please exchange your speech docs, either through an email chain or flash drive. Efficiency matters, and I’d rather not sit through endless prep timeouts for viewing cards.

• Extend warrants, not just taglines. It’s better to collapse down to 1-2 well-developed arguments than to breeze through 10 blippy ones.

• Anything in the Final Focus should be in the Summary – stay focused on your key args.

• Too few teams debate about evidence/qualifications – that’s a good way to boost speaks and set your sources apart.

Lincoln-Douglas

• I think LD is too often a rush to imitate Policy, which results in some messy debates. Don’t change your style because of my background – if you’re not comfortable (or well-practiced) spreading 5 off-case args, then that’s not advisable.

• If your value criterion takes 2+ minutes to read, please link the substance of your case back to it. This seems to be the most under-developed part of most LD rounds.

• Theory is fine when clearly explained and consistently extended, but I’m not a fan of debaters throwing out a ton of quick voters in search of a cheap shot. Things like RVIs are tough enough to win in the first place, so you should be prepared to commit sufficient time if you want theory to be an option.

Policy

[Quick note: I've been out of practice in judging Policy for a bit, so don't take for granted my knowledge of topic jargon or ability to catch every arg at top-speed - I've definitely become a curmudgeon about clarity.]

Counterplans/theory:

• I generally think limited condo (2 positions) is okay, but I've become a bit wary on multiple contradictory positions.

• Theory means reject the arg most of the time (besides condo).

• I often find “Perm- do the CP” persuasive against consult, process, or certainty-based CPs. I don’t love CPs that result in the entire aff, but I’ll vote on them if I have to.

• Neg- tell me how I should evaluate the CP and disad. Think judge kick is true? Say it. It’s probably much better for you if I’m not left to decide this on my own.

Kritiks:

• K affs that are at least somewhat linked to the resolutional controversy will fare the best in front of me. That doesn't mean that you always need a plan text, but it does mean that I most enjoy affirmatives that defend something in the direction of the topic.

• For Ks in general: the more specific, the better - nuanced link debates will go much farther than 100 different ways to say "state bad".

• Framework args on the aff are usually just reasons to let the aff weigh their impacts.

Topicality:

• Caselists, plz.

• No preference toward reasonability or competing interps - just go in depth instead of repeating phrases like "race to the bottom" and moving on.

I graduated from The Montgomery Academy in Montgomery, AL. I competed for 4 years in PF, Congress, IX/DX, and Impromptu. PF and Congress were my main events. I competed on both local (AL) and national circuits.

General:

be civil and respect your opponents

I like any and all arguments (excluding discriminatory or offensive arguments or rhetoric). If you make a logically valid argument I can vote for it, but every argument you decide to go for needs to be well fleshed out in round.

Spreading should not happen in PF. In general speed is fine, but try to avoid speaking too quickly, especially over zoom. If I can't understand you, I will clear you and then expect you to slow down a bit. If you do not, that will be reflected in your speaker points as well as on the flow if I simply cannot flow your argument/evidence/card tag. Discuss with your opponent about comfort levels with speed before the round starts- fairness and accessibility are key. If your opponent can not understand speed, do not speed.

PF

things I like to see in a round

1. Weighing- this is most important part of the debate. I can't do this for you, so please tell me how to evaluate the round, why I should prefer your arg, etc.

2. Collapsing- Please collapse!!!! Don't try to go for everything. i don't care if you do this in the form of voters or not, just tell me where you're winning on my flow. (TLDR: I shouldn't be "signing my ballot" at every argument you made during the round. tell me what's important and then drive it home)

3. Signposting- Please signpost! Roadmaps are great too

4. Everything in FF must be in summary for both first and second FF

5. extend- If its really important, I need to see it in every speech (exception is defense in 1st summary, see below)

things I don't like to see in a round

1. Miscut evidence- you will receive under 25 speaks if the evidence turns out to be faulty

2. No warrants/links- if you have claim then impact without warrants and link you do not in fact have an impact

3. DO NOT ABUSE YOUR TIME

other stuff

1. I don't require defense extension in first summary, only offense

2. I appreciate skipping grand but it has absolutely no effect on speaks/my perception of you/the round in anyway. If both teams agree to skip that's great, but if you think it's important, PLEASE speak up and we will do it

3. I don't mind whether you sit or stand for anything, especially for online rounds

4. Overviews can be nice but if you're going to do it, get into it as early as you can. Also, your overview shouldn't take away from actual clash/responses/ or be a waste of time

Please e-mail me or find me if you have questions!! sofiebehr10@gmail.com or behrse0@sewanee.edu

Sometimes I like to disclose, sometimes I don't. It depends on the tournament rules, as well as the round itself, how much time we have left, etc. If I chose not to disclose for whatever reason or if we don't have time, I'll do my best to provide adequate feedback, but feel free to post round me by email or in person.

Have fun and enjoy yourself!

Hey everyone!

I will keep my paradigm rather simplistic. I appreciate creative, clear arguments. Avoid spreading and respect your opponents.

SOOOOOOO TRAD.

While I have no previous experience judging debate tournaments, I am currently taking an Advanced Argumentation class at the University of Alabama, where we have worked extensively on debate structure, content, and flow. I am a senior majoring in Creative Media with minors in Creative Writing and Communication Studies, and in these debates I am looking mainly for a strong, well-supported argument with coherent reasoning and well-sourced, reliable evidence.

Hello, M name is Candace Davis and I am a student at the University of Alabama majoring in Theatre and Communication Studies. I am a first time judge for the debate tournament. I have experience debating in several debates throughout the last four years. I have taken two collegiate level courses specifically geared towards the art of debating. This includes argumentation and critical decision making. I have experience flowing a handful of debates as well. In a debate I will be looking for well supported factual arguments with evidence, the structure (it's constructed well/using key terms to transition from point to point), the flow of the debate, and delivery. Good luck, keep the language clean, and have fun!

My name is Lashawndra Evans I am a senior at The University of Alabama. I am a Communication Studies major with a double minor in African-American Studies and Criminal Justice on a pre-law track. This will be my first time judging a debate and I am looking forward to it. I am looking for clear and well-written arguments. I would like for the debaters to be able to tell me why their argument should be chosen as the most outstanding. I would also like to see confidence in what is being presented. I believe in the debaters and believe they all know their topics well, so I really would like to see that being presented.

Hello all, my name is Buchanan Everhart and I am currently a Junior at the University of Alabama where I am studying for my Communication Studies Major. I am currently in a medium-level argumentation class where I have some experience debating and making flows/ detailed notes on someone else's speech. I personally have not judged a debate before or have participated in an official tournament before. However, with that being said, I am still looking for some requirements in your debates/arguments. First, the structure, how it is organized, and how well its constructed/using key terms to transition from point to point. In addition, I am looking for the quality of the content more so than quantity. Having multiple disadvantages is very helpful and sometimes required, however having fewer advantages/disadvantages but better quality and more concrete/ detailed is better than adding more advantages/disadvantages that are not as strong of a point or not as closely related. Lastly, points will be taken off for any hateful, harmful, discriminatory, and/or profane language that is used and could even result in an immediate forfeit for your team. However, this does not mean you cannot be passionate and enthusiastic in your debates, just be mindful as always that it is only a debate and personal relations/ bias's should be set aside for the debate and I encourage you to be passionate yet mindful of others!

Hello!

My name is Micah Gooch and I am a senior at the University of Alabama majoring in Communication with a minor in Theatre. While I have no previous experience judging debate tournaments, I am currently taking an Advanced Argumentation class at the University of Alabama, where we have worked effortlessly on debate structure, content, and flow. In these debates, I am looking for a strong, well-supported argument with consistent reasoning and well-sourced, reliable evidence. I am also looking for good deliveries as well. Good luck to all contenders.

Rounds are meant to be fun and you should go for any argument you feel comfortable defending, that being said it is your job to tell me the link at every level. Don't assume that I'll make the link, show me your work and tell me how you access your impacts. Be kind to your opponents, you can be assertive and strong in cross, but it doesn't mean you have to be rude. Jargon is ok but you better understand what you are saying and how it applies to a case, don't just say weighing or scope if you can't show me what those things actually mean. I can be fairly expressive in rounds, don't read into my non-verbal reactions!

i have been debating Public Forum at Montgomery Academy for three years.

General:

be respectful and civil as it is important to listen in the debate - this is the most important aspect to me

if you don't not present evidence in the first portion of your speech it will be scratched from the flow

tag lines for your contentions are always helpful, and they help keep the debate organized

ORGANIZATION - i hate a very messy and hard to follow debate round

PF:

i would prefer you not to spread

i can deal with speed but not spreading

also, i would prefer no theory unless you feel there is a violation

make sure to clearly state how you would like the round to be weighed as it is to your advantage

no more evidence after the first summary will be taken into consideration

your final focus should be a wrap-up and narrative NOT a rebuttal

Everyone loves a good debate, and the first step to a great debate are proper guidelines. Due to my recent enrollment into COM 348 at the University of Alabama, I have obtained the necessary skills to properly judge a debate. This advanced argumentation course has provided me with the knowledge on how to flow arguments and decide which argument exceeds other arguments. We have extensively covered the structure of debates as well as participated in our own debates. In order to ensure the success of each participant involved in the debate, I would like to list the key elements I will be looking for while judging each debate.

Each participant must be clear when stating their stance of their argument in the debate. The debate teams will either have an affirmative or negative stance on their topic. There should not be any confusion about if you are for or against your topic. When you are developing your argument, try to maintain a good level of consistency by trying to not contradict yourself. I am looking for well thought out arguments that should be relevant to the debate topic. Try to provide evidence that can help your argument and not break it down. Each point should be well thought out, and explained in detail. Do not simply state that you believe something to be true. Give concrete evidence to support your claim.

When debating, participants can become competitive and might say harmful or offensive statements. I am looking for respectful rebuttal. I want you to get your point across but in a respectful way. Show your ability to listen to an opponents argument and point out the flaws within it. The progression of your argument and how you respond to statements that discredit your argument are essential elements to consider when trying to win the debate. Think steps ahead of your opponent. I am looking for the team with the most consistent argument that has provided concrete evidence to ensure that their argument is the correct stance.

- Jacquez King

I debated in Public Forum debate (2013-2017) at Western Highschool in Florida.

I have a Bachelor's degree in Political Science from the University of Florida and a Master's degree in Liberal Studies from Georgetown University. Attending Northeastern University Law School in the fall.

a couple of things:

-Y'all should be timing the debate. I am the judge, not a babysitter. I like when teams hold each other accountable.

- don't read a new contention in rebuttal. that's not going on my flow

- The first summary should extend defense if the second rebuttal frontlines the argument. I think it is strategic for the second rebuttal to respond to turns and overviews.

- My attention to crossfire will probably depend on the time of day and my current mood. Please use it strategically if not I'll probably switch to watching youtube videos. - do not just read evidence explain the evidence in your own words. Tell me why the evidence matters to me at the end of the day.

- the summary is cool and all but don't go for everything on the flow, condense the round and give me a narrative. Quality of voters> Quantity of voters.

- Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh.

-any other questions ask me before the round

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

"30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior."

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

if you want to learn more about debate and get better under my guidance.

Click on the link below and sign up now!!!!

https://vancouverdebate.ca/intrinsic-debate-institute-summer-camp-2022/

I used to help children debates in high school. I believe this is a great way for children to express themselves.

I am the debate sponsor at JCIB in Birmingham, AL. I do not have personal experience as a debater and have learned what I know about debate from my students. My main request is that you do not speak at such a quick speed that it is impossible to understand what you are saying. If I can't understand you or follow your speeches, I can't vote on it! I will keep track of time on tabroom but I also encourage you to keep time yourself.

I am the debate coach at Paul W. Bryant High School. I have been coaching and judging Public Forum for 4 years.

Don't go too fast. While I am pretty good at note-taking, I cannot judge you on things if I miss them while you are speaking.

I don't care for off-time roadmaps and usually disregard them.

Decorum is very important in debate. Do not be rude to your opponents or your judge. Do not argue with the judge's decision after the round has concluded. I want to give you feedback and it is usually best received with an open mind and not while you are defensive.

Don't reveal your personal political affiliation. While I do my best to stay objective, it can put you at a disadvantage with some judges if they disagree with your political stance.

My name is Adam Shultz. I am a student at the University of Alabama. I am new to debate judging, as I have no experience judging debates. I am currently in an advanced argumentation class at the University of Alabama and have participated in in-class debates and have experience flowing debates as well. I will be judging the debates based on arguments pushed and the response to those arguments. Each speaker will be judged on how clearly they articulate their argument and main points. Overall, I will be judging the debate based on the argument each speaker presents and how the opposing team answers and responds to those arguments.

I did PF at MA all four years of high school, and I’m currently a freshman in college. I’m a pretty trad judge.

If you have any questions just ask me before the round.

Hello, my name is Valerie Tomberlin. I am a senior at the University of Alabama. I am very excited to judge the debate competition this Saturday. The paradigm I will be following as a judge during the competition is Tabula Rasa. This is a Latin phrase that translates to "a clean slate." This means that there will be no assumptions or preconceived notions on what is proper to vote on. I will expect debaters to show why their argument is the one that should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. This means that debaters need to have solid advantages/ disadvantages depending if they are on the affirmative or negative side of the argument.

I am comfortable with counter plans, disadvantages, and even a faster paced speech if necessary. I also will pull from the policymaker paradigm in a sense of who presents the best policy option. I will be weighing the affirmative's advantages versus the negative's disadvantages to decide who the clear winner should be. Regardless of the topic, I will strictly judge on who proves why their argument is the strongest, with clear and obvious points. I recognize the importance of my role as a judge and will do my very best to judge fairly as well as staying neutral, while choosing the team that I believe delivered the best speech for the topic they are arguing. Good luck!

I flow, but you should consider me a lay-judge. Win with your arguments and your logic, not debate tactics. In PF rounds, please do not impact your arguments out to 'human extinction.' I do not believe this is a realistic consequence of any of the topics debated in PF. 

I also do not allow off-time roadmaps. I really like roadmaps and signposting, but you need to do it within the timeframe of your speech.

Hello, my name is Scarlett Williams, I'm a student at the University of Alabama majoring in communication studies. I have judged one debate competition before and have lots debate and flow experience. My other experience includes classes such as argumentation, critical decision making, public speaking, and forensics pedagogy.

Hi my name is Jack Zalinsky, I am currently a senior majoring in communication studies at the University of Alabama. Over the past semester I have had to the pleasure to take an advanced argumentation class and was able to use my previous knowledge of COM studies to debate with my fellow classmates. I am very excited to take all of the information I have gained throughout my time as a college student and apply it during this debate. Throughout this debate I will be judging on multiple aspects. What I am looking for in the debates are fully developed ideas and supporting information that are well put together and are able to be articulated in a clear manner. Rebuttals are a vital part of debates which is why I will be listening very closely to both teams rebuttals. I should easily be able to know what point you are rebutting and how you use it as a tool for your teams argument. I looking forward to listening to all of your debates and wish you all the best of luck!

Intro: Hi everyone! My name is Ariel (she/her/hers), and I am currently a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania, studying finance & marketing operations with a design minor.

Background: I debated Public Forum for four years at Vestavia Hills High School in Birmingham, Alabama. I debated on the local and national circuit and qualified to NSDA Nationals and TOC Gold in 2020. I also kinda competed in Congress (but like idk what I was doing).

PF:

General/Fun Overview

1. If you turn when you read a turn, I will give you +0.5 speaks.

2. I like puns and funny catchphrases in speeches, so do what you will with that info.

3. Don't steal prep time pls and thx - also i hate extremely long evidence exchanges. I expect you to run your own prep time if you call for evidence.

4. I vote off crossfire. Just kidding. I will probably be on my phone during cross, so if anything important happens in cross, be sure to reference it in later speeches, so I can flow it.

5. If you fail to present evidence within three mins, I will scratch it from my flow.

6. Tech > Truth

7. Any discriminatory comments will result in an auto drop.

8. On a scale of 1-10, I can flow speed of around 7. Spread at your own risk.

Progressive Args

1. My experience with Progressive Args is limited. I'm not a huge fan of frivolous theory and non-topical kritiks. Run at your own risk. 90% of the time, I will be confused. Do whatever. Go stupid. Go crazy.

2. Please don't run theory unless there is an actual violation. Disclosure, Paraphrasing, and Trigger Warning theory are fine I guess.

3. USE TRIGGER WARNINGS. PLEASE if you run any suicide or domestic abuse or anything potentially triggering in case, give us a heads up and warning ahead of time.

Rebuttals

1. Second rebuttal should frontline turns, extend, and weigh case. Start collapsing if you want. It makes the narrative more clear.

2. Weigh and implicate any turns.

3. Quality > Quantity

Summary

1. Defense is sticky. Frontline in rebuttal/1st summary if you want to extend an argument.

2. COLLAPSE COLLAPSE COLLAPSE COLLAPSE COLLAPSE COLLAPSE. COLLAPSE down on one or two arguments. Do not give me a summary of everything.

3. weigh. weigh. weigh. start early. I expect weighing in BOTH summary and final focus. Tell me why I prefer your arguments.

4. No new arguments or evidence should be read AFTER the first summary unless you are responding to a new response in the first summary.

5. I prefer line by line over big picture, but do as you please.

Final Focus

1. If it's not in summary, it can't be in the final focus.

2. If you extend a completely different argument than your partner did in their summary, you have no offense.

3. Paint a narrative by the final focus speeches. EXTEND the full link chain and warrants and impact. If there is no impact, I will not vote for it.

4. I enjoy probability weighing.

LD:

um... yea. Treat me like a lay judge :)

Any Questions? Email me OR send me a meme: aszhou@wharton.upenn.edu