LD- I’d like to see a value and a criterion

LD is Value Debate. Propositions of Value

CX is Policy Debate. Propositions of Policy

As a debate judge, my primary focus is on promoting a respectful and clear debating environment. Here are the key elements of my debate paradigm:

1. Respect and Decorum:

   • I place a high value on respect in debates. Competitors should treat each other with civility and refrain from personal attacks, derogatory language, or disrespectful behavior.
   • Maintain proper decorum throughout the debate, addressing your opponents and judges respectfully.

2. Clarity and Accessibility:

   • Clarity is essential. I must be able to understand your arguments to give you credit for them, so please enunciate clearly and avoid talking too fast.
   • If I cannot understand your argument, I cannot flow it.

3. Spreading:

   • If competitors choose to engage in spreading (rapid delivery of arguments), they must maintain clarity. Speed should not come at the expense of intelligibility.
   • Remember that spreading is not the only path to victory. Well-articulated, well-structured arguments can be more persuasive than sheer speed.

4. Use of Crossfires:

   • I do not consider crossfires as a time for rebuttals. Crossfires are meant for competitors to ask questions and clarify their opponent's arguments. I do not flow arguments made in crossfire.
   • Please use crossfires to seek clarification, challenge your opponent's arguments, and help me understand the debate better.

In summary, my judging philosophy is rooted in fostering a respectful and comprehensible debate environment. I believe that a respectful discourse is not only more constructive but also more persuasive. Clarity is essential, and I urge competitors to prioritize it, especially when spreading. Remember that crossfires are for questions, not rebuttals. Good luck, and let's have a productive and respectful debate!

A note about rule violations: I know the rules of debate. I am aware of both the OSSAA and NSDA rules and their various differences. I keep copies of the handbooks at the ready, so I can look up rules if I feel a rule was violated. That being said, I will weigh lies made in round in my judging decisions. Lies about cheating, evidence, drops, etc. are all weighed into my judging decision. Lying will not benefit you in my rounds. Debates should be about which team can make the best argument, not which team can trick the judge. If you need to lie to win, you did not win the round.

Notes for IEs:

I value genuine performance over screaming and fake crying every single time. Anyone can scream- few can act.

BIG NOTE: You NEED to implement trigger warnings if you have a selection with triggering content. You do not know what the experience of those in the rooms is- you could seriously hurt someone's performance by not giving a warning. You also do not know the lived experiences of your judges- they are a captive audience and you ought to give them a chance to prepare themselves. This is why dramatic pieces often get called Trauma Interpretations. That's not a compliment- it's a statement on how upsetting it is to see children acting out the most heinous trauma they possibly can in order to get reactions through shock value. If you are genuinely good- trigger warnings will not dull your performance- they will enhance it. If you rely on the shock of triggering people- consider if you are really a good actor. Trigger warnings DO NOT count against your speech time- there is literally no reason to give one.

LD: I'm pretty traditional. I like values and criteria and evidence and clash. If you read a K or a bedtime narrative, I will stop flowing the round and take a nap. I have a speed threshold of "don't" and if you could please keep the jargon to a minimum, that would be great. Theory is cool, in theory, but it shouldn't be an entire framework. I like long walks on the beach, and a good tennis match. Also, don't shake my hand at the end of the round.

PF: Um....win more arguments than the other team. Go. Fight. Win.

Nat'l Circuit:

I graduated from a traditional school, however, I was easily the most progressive debater on my team especially during my senior year. I know all the lingo so don't be afraid to use terms you normally would in regular rounds with a judge with a progressive debate background. Ks/CPs in PF/LD are cool, but if you can't support it better than your opponents args or if it has less impact then I might not vote for it. I don't know much about T/Theory so just explain it as much as possible. I judge all PF rounds off CBA (Cost Benefit Analysis), unless one or both of the teams provides framework. Impacts and cards are the most important part of rounds for me in any debate format, so go heavy on those.

PF:

I mainly did PF for three years, so I'd say I know a thing or two about it.

Progressiveness: Check the Nat'l Circuit part above.

Speed: Speed doesn't bother me, I used to speak pretty fast during rounds, but don't try to spread if you know you can't. Also, if you're going to spread you should be more than willing to share the cards you spread with me and your opponents. Also, if I am judging you on a traditional circuit and can tell your opponent cannot understand you because you are speaking too fast, I will ask you to either slow your wpm (words per minute) down, or to forfeit the round. Spreading to make it harder for your opponent to debate you is an abusive debate strategy that I will never vote for, no matter how much your opponent might have lost on the flow.

Framework: Personally not the biggest fan of framework in PF, but if you have it that's cool. If your opponents don't have framework, I will automatically default to your FW and vice versa. However, if your only main attack against your opponents who don't have FW is "they don't have framework," it's not necessary to repeat over and over again. On the contrary, if you hit someone who has FW and you don't and your only defense is "it's PF we don't have to have FW," and never mention it again, that argument will get dropped. Yes, in PF FW isn't necessary or even really required, but if your opponents have it you need to attack it with more than a "no FW in PF" argument.

Speaker Points: Things that will get you low speaker are racism, bigotry, ableism, sexism, discrimination against the LGBT+, screaming at your opponents, and being disrespectful to anybody in the round. It's unnecessary. I understand well enough myself that debate rounds can get heated, but that doesn't justify doing anything I just listed off. Also, if you're speaking too fast and I can't understand you or if you try to spread the entire round but it's unintelligible, again you'll get low speaks. Mumbling and being incoherent will also earn you low speaks. Last one, telling your opponent to "shush" will automatically get you 1 speaker point or 0 if that's possible to give. I've had an opponent shush me before, and it is insanely rude. Their coach rightfully chewed them out for it, and if you do it in a round I will make sure your coach chews you out for it. Do not do that.

RFDs: I will not vote you down for anything in that list I mentioned of things that will get you low speaks (racism, bigotry, ableism, sexism, discrimination against the LGBT+, etc.), because at that point I would not be judging your debate skill but rather your unfortunate character as a person. Rather, I'll treat it as if I'm ignoring the ignorant things you said and choose to educate you at the end of the round why that behavior is unacceptable generally, but especially in the debate space. The RFD will be on your online ballot as long as the tournament I judged you at has it set up right. If what I put in my RFD doesn't make sense or you want to know a bit more why you lost (or won, I guess), email me at jaleighthayer4n6s@gmail.com. It is a personal, debate only email so I will actually respond.

LD:

My experience in LD is equal if not a bit more than my experience doing PF.

Framework: If you drop your opponents framework, I will automatically default to it over yours. Framework is unarguably the most important part of LD. Also, I'm a Philosophy major at my college so trust that if you run a super traditional and philosophical framework wrong, I will know.

Philosophy: I'm a philosophy major, so yes I know about philosophy. However, if you run your philosophy wrong and continue to after your opponent points it out, I will not vote for it. In some cases of this, you may be able to win the round, but it's unlikely.

Refer to the PF section for concerns about RFDs, Speaker Points, Progressiveness, and Speed.

Same thing as on the PF section, if you're confused/want to know more about why you were voted down (or up I guess), the email is jaleighthayer4n6s@gmail.com and is my personal debate email, so you'll actually get a response.

Non-Oratory Speech:

Not gonna lie, this is not my area of expertise. So if I somehow judge a non-oratory speech round, treat me like a parent judge who kinda knows what's going on. Except for Poetry and DI, I literally barely did any acting speech so seriously, treat me like a parent judge.

Oratory Speech (OO, INFO, SO):

I absolutely love oratories. For OO and INFO, I will focus more on the quality of your speech, the message in your speech, and the delivery of it. Other than that, rock on. For SO (AKA Declamation), all the same stuff as the other two but I won't really focus on the quality of the speech (like how it's written) because you didn't write it. (Or at least I should assume you didn't.)

Extemp:

I love extemp with all my heart. I did it for four years, and did pretty well at it too, so expect me to be critical of your speech.

I will judge it off of timing, amount of sources used, background information (especially for FEX), and the quality of your speech. Also if your speech is boring, you'll probably end up in the bottom half of the room.

Went to nationals twice in PF, got 5th at state in FX, got 8th at state in PF.

Totally comfortable with theory/progressive debate as long as it is not sloppy.

You can spread if you like just share the case with me first, and know that I will not give you any bonus points for doing it.

Add me to any evidence sharing chain (I will look at all the evidence) I will not flow against bad cards unless the opponents indict it but I might doc speaks for it.

Make the most of CX, because I will flow it through.

If you do not extend an argument, I will not either.

I am going to vote off warrants so make sure those are pretty clear.

Try to tell me what the bigger picture is, like what a AFF v NEG world looks like. (especially in National Circuit Tournaments)

Also, I appreciate any references to Taylor Swift or the exceedingly long One Piece anime series.

Overall, be respectful and have fun!!!