1. Speak clearly...if you are going to spread, then make sure I can still understand you.

2. Don't leave connections up to me. Follow through on arguments.

3. Tag Teaming is fine, just don't be rude to your opponent.

4. Speaking of rude: There is no other way to get dropped faster than to be rude. Use your words, not attitude.

5. I deduct the time looking at your opponent’s evidence from your prep. Don’t waste time.

Hello! My name is Cristina (she/her) and I'm currently a college student at the University of Arizona. I did speech and debate all through high school and really enjoyed it. I've only been away from the circuit for a year, and I'm familiar with the struggles of competing online, so don't worry.

To sum up my longer paradigm if you're in a hurry: experienced in various speech and debate events that will vote off flow, but comms are taken into account through efficiency, enunciation, and clarity. Please be respectful, weigh your impacts, give voters, and have fun :)

Background

I was definitely a speech and debate kid. I did debate in Idaho for four years, almost entirely in LD, but don't panic, I don't apply LD principles when judging PF, CX, or Congress. I'm very familiar with every debate event, and I promise I know what I'm doing. I've qualified to nationals, been district champion, and won several tournaments in OO, INFO, LD, and IMP speaking (flex).

Generally...

Do not run offensive, insensitive, racist, homophobic, sexist, etc arguments or contentions. If you marginalize communities or rely on problematic rhetoric and stereotypes you will automatically lose the round. Taking this into account, run whatever you would like to! Similarly, please be respectful to your opponents. Good debate rounds can have lots of clash and questioning, but overly rude and disrespectful competitors will be dropped.

I would say I'm largely a flow judge. I will be flowing the entire round, so long as I understand and can hear you. I will try my absolute best to listen and deal with audio or camera problems, but I ask that you do not speak ridiculously fast. Again, that being said, I can handle very fast speaking speeds and styles, just enunciate and make your arguments, warrants, links, and impacts clear. I will take your comms into effect with your speaker points and how you efficiently and clearly direct your speeches.

I will vote for your arguments even if I dislike or disagree with it, just warrant it and defend it.

Roadmaps are fine, just don't take too long.

Direct me to where you are on the flow so I know where to write.

Finish your sentence after the timer goes off, but don't go over too much.

If you have questions abut my RFD or decision please feel free to email me at cbaez9609@gmail.com

LD Specifics

I love a good value criterion debate. V/C is a major way that LD is distinguished from other events, so I would like competitors to address it. Don't just tell me your framework is better, explain WHY, or meet your opponent's framework in a different way. If you are both running the same or very similar frameworks, it's probably not worth spending lots of time debating it, unless you feel a distinction is important for your arguments and case. I will weigh the V/C debate, but usually not higher than the contention debate.

First, make sure to connect your points to the resolution. If I don't know how your arguments link to the resolution I won't include them in my decision.

Weigh your impacts! The competitor that weighs and compares impacts throughout will probably win my ballot. Explain WHY your impacts are more important, don't just say they are. You can address timeframe, scope, magnitude, etc. As far as probability and pragmatism goes, because most LD topics include "ought" or "should" topicality depends on the specific round. I will only drop arguments based on probability only if your opponent attacks and deconstructs it. I will not interfere.

With Progressive LD, I really have no preference between traditional or progressive and will not vote based on a preference I have.

Counter-plans are fine, but you should explain it clearly and connect it to the resolution.

Running a K is also fine, but I won't vote on it unless you explain how it relates to the topic.

I will vote for your arguments even if I dislike or disagree with it, just warrant it and defend it.

PF Specifics

Most of my preferences over impacts, framework, and arguments can just be carried over to PF.

Debate:

I prefer that you articulate your arguments with intent to persuade me. Therefore, don't spread because I do not find it persuasive.

I do not like off time road maps but I allow them.

I will not time the transfer of evidence but prep time starts once you have the evidence.

Please advance the debate rather than repeat contentions.

I enjoy appropriate clash. I expect civility even in heated cross examination.

I disapprove of tag teaming but I will not score it down unless it becomes too excessive.

In LD I expect the debater will make it very clear how the case upholds the value. I score down when the value debate becomes separate from the evidence based debate and neither support the other in any clear manner.

Speech:

I look for the speaker to make connection with the audience. Points are given when you can create an audience impact through emotion or logic.

In interpretive events and OO I expect very clean and precise blocking.

In extemporaneous and impromptu events I expect structured speeches with a sense of polish despite the short prep time. I will score down if an impromptu speech appears canned or the connection to the selected topic is a stretch.

I am a 'tab' judge. Teams/speakers must show me why their arguments should be voted on as opposed to assuming I will vote on them based on my own beliefs. I am a former TOC circuit policy debater and current head coach of a high school debate program. I am fine with all types of arguments, and very familiar with debate jargon and procedures.

I am typically fine with speed as well.

Please give clear voting issues a the end of the round.

Please signpost clearly.

Please give a brief off time road map prior to all speeches with the acceptation of the first affirmative.

I am a newer judge. I judge on the clarity of arguments and speaking skills.

My background/history: I studied speech/communications and have spent the last two decades first as a broadcast journalist and now as an executive in charge of strategic communication and change management for a large government agency. I have been judging since 2019.

Persuasion and influence depend on the strength and clarity of an argument. That's what I look for in every round.

I make my decision based on thoughtful, well-organized arguments where impacts are clearly defined. Convince me your argument is best. Tell me why. Be creative, but keep your arguments relevant.

I have to be able to understand your words — including the text of evidence - in order to judge most fairly and appropriately.

Quality of arguments is always more important than quantity. I love clash! Be respectful and kind.

Your primary focus should be on presenting sound arguments and countering your opponents' arguments, not just looking for opportunities to attack an opponent's style or method flaws.

I am generous on speaker points for those who speak in a natural way and command attention through eye contact and body language.

Some of my other favorite things? Passion about your position, anticipating an opponent's arguments, smart and spirited cross-examination (pay attention to your opponent's answers and work them into your counter!)

Bring your best self to the round...and have fun! I promise to do the same.

Email: andreadearden@gmail.com

My paradigm primarily lies in strong links. Economic arguments are good too. My primary education is in economics, so if debaters make those kinds of arguments, then I will be able to provide the most detailed feedback.

I tend to not favor arguments that provide weak links (such as nuclear war contentions) or ones that require theory that is too detached from what a debater can reasonably absorb and refute over the course of a single round. Though the introduction of new theories can be important and very educational, I think that debate rounds are unfortunately too short to reasonably be able to introduce what might have taken the speaker several hours to reading to understand originally. So introduce new ideas, but please be mindful of your limited ability to express them, and please try to prevent them from becoming more of a cudgel than an educational tool.

I debated all three years of high school and I am familiar with all types of debate. I am very open as a judge and I will vote on pretty much any argument. It is imperative that you clearly emphasize what you want me to vote on and make that the main focus of the debate. Don’t spend most of the debate talking about one thing just to tell me in the last speech that I should vote on something else.

V/C debate: If I'm being honest, this is usually pointless and in basically every debate I have ever watched, participated in, or judged, it ends up at promoting good things through consequentialism. If you have impacts, your value is basically consequentialism and therefore we don't need to spend a lot of time debating it. It's really hard to make a meaningful argument about why one value is more important so anytime spent here should be either that your opponent doesn't meet your value or their own or that you meet both. This is also something that I prefer to be woven into the debate and your impacts. You can literally just add "which improves quality of life" and move on usually.

Voters: I love voters. No joke. Spend at least a minute telling me why I should be voting for you. Don't cover voters "if you have time." Make time. They are usually the most important part of the debate.

Speed: I can understand speed to a point but if you are going too fast and either I or your opponent don't catch something then that's a problem.

Dropped arguments: Your opponent dropping an argument doesn't mean that you won that argument unless you go back over it and explain why it matters that they dropped it and why you are right.

Flowing: If you want me to be flowing something and I’m looking up, I’m not flowing it. Go back over it so I can get on the flow.

I understand that debate is a competitive event and that things can get heated sometimes. That being said, if you are actively rude to your opponent I will give you terrible speaks and probably drop you. I will also not vote FOR you on an argument that is sexist, homophobic, racist, xenophobic, etc. It will probably lead to terrible speaks and me dropping you.

Hello, as you know my name is Seth, I use he/him/his as well as they/them/theirs pronouns, depending on whichever you're more comfortable with. I competed in speech and debate for 3 years at Eagle High School, starting in my sophomore year, and I competed for 3 more years at the College of Idaho for my undergrad. Here's how I feel in regards to judging a lot of the different types of debate, and other notes:

Policy

I did policy for my novice year of high school and went to the Gonzaga Debate Institute for 2 summers. I'm comfortable with just about anything you wanna throw at me in policy, but please make sure you understand what you're reading and are able to explain it to your opponents. Make sure your spreading isn't blending words together either, if you're stumbling over your words, slow down, it is totally OK. You're more than welcome to ask me questions before the round as well. Also, if I judge the round the wrong way and you feel the need to tell me, please do! We are always learning more and more when it comes to debate, and as a judge I'm always down with having some more knowledge.

LD

I did Lincoln Douglas for a majority of my high school debate career. You are more than welcome to run whatever you like. I also like to weigh the round on value and criterion. You need to tell me why I should prefer yours over your opponent's and why it's the primary lens for the round. Go as fast as you like, but be considerate of your opponent. I also require you give me voters in your rebuttals, because that draws the image for me in regards of whether I vote for the AFF or the NEG.

PF

I competed in PF here and there in high school, and helped prep some of school's PF teams. I want to ultimately be convinced. I'm as fresh as they come to the PF scene so the more explanation you do for me, the better. If you accidently do some slightly progressive things in PF, I won't get as mad at you as some of the more traditional PF judges will, but that doesn't mean you should run a CP in the round because you know you shouldn't be doing that anyway.

Speaker Points

I give speaker points based on a few things: 1) Did you communicate your points well? 2) Were you actively engaged throughout the entire debate? 3) Did you compose yourself in a respectful manner to your opponent and your judge?. If you can follow these 3 things, you be guaranteed good speaks, however, it won't solidify the 30 for you. That is earned by truly delivering an outstanding speech in round.

Overall Note:

If any competitors read arguments, say, or do anything that support racism, homophobia, sexism, transphobia, and any other form of systematic oppression or hate, I will not tolerate it and I will end the round and report the person committing those said actions to tabs.

If you have any questions about a round I judge y'all in, and if I'm judging you in policy send me the doc at: sgarw0138@gmail.com

Please present your arguments using a professional and conversational style. A speaking pace a bit faster than normal conversation is fine. However, spreading has been used to manipulate the rules and turn policy debate into something it was never meant to be. That has taken over policy, so I accept it, but don't try to do the same in other forms of debate.

Except for in Public Forum, I am a “flow” judge. Be sure to roadmap and signpost. Don't drop points unless you have decided they don't matter to the issue. I will weigh who won each point and then determine which points are most critical to the issue in determining who won the debate.

Since Public Forum is intended to be judged by lay people and end with a summary and focus that are about the most important issues from the debate, public forum is not intended to require that students continue debating every point until the end of the debate. Thus, claims that someone dropped your point during one of the last 3 speeches don't matter unless that point seems more important than whatever the other side did say. I will still flow because that's how I'm used to taking notes, but the vote will be based on who made the most convincing arguments overall rather than on a careful consideration of who won each point.

Better evidence is more important than more evidence. Sources matter. Evidence isn’t an argument; it should support arguments and be backed up by solid reasoning.

You should have evidence beyond what is in your cases. Please use it.

When refuting, please be specific about how your arguments apply to each contention and subpoint.

Topics reflect concerns in our society. Case approaches should always consider the framers' intent.

Tabula Rasa - As much as is possible, my vote is based on the arguments you and your opponent present rather than on what I know or believe.

Be polite and take it seriously. Debate is about communication, and manners are a very important part of communication.

I am Ridgevue's speech and debate coach.

School Affiliations: Work at and graduated from Capital High School

Judging/Event Types: PF, LD, BQ, Informative

I have been an educator for 10 years, with a background in English and Library. This is my first year of judging and coaching at Capital High School. Much of my focus is on how well competitors follow the rules of their different events. I'll be looking for professionalism and clear and concise arguments. I very much believe in verified and well-supported evidence and want to hear that clearly cited within your speeches.

With my library and English background, word choice and well-articulated arguments are a sure way of persuading me. I will award points on how well-spoken, practiced, and confident your arguments are. Although accuracy and valid evidence are important, I believe the basis of all debate about the use of persuasive rhetoric. So if you can persuade me with less evidence, then you have met your goal. I'll be looking for debators that defend their stances and use logical arguments to do so.

I tend to take a large number of notes during a debate or speech to help identify key points and any strong arguments that I find to be very persuasive to help me make a final decision. That being said, if you see my attention is on writing after your speech has concluded, please give me a moment to finish my thoughts before proceeding.

If your topic is related to any current events in the world, I'll be looking for that current and relevant information in your speeches as well.

If you are not following protocol and behaving professionally during the cross, then I will deduct points from your final total. I strongly believe in the importance of open and fair discourse.

Prefer conversational pace, weigh decision in debate holistically, minimize debate jargon (particularly in PF), swayed by competent philosophical arguments in LD, support is important but does not outweigh sound logical arguments and reasonable impacts/harms.

I prefer a slower debate. I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable; the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak.

Being aggressive is fine, just make sure you don't say or do anything that is offensive.

Overall, have fun, it's your debate.

I'm a flow judge. You should signpost well, but speed is fine. Tell me beyond just evidence why you've won the debate. Give clear voters.

And don't be rude(:

Hello!

For a little background on me, I'm currently a sophomore at Columbia University after doing debate for 4 years in high school (1 year of LD and 3 years of policy). At the moment, I'm doing Parliamentary debate. I don't have any experience with the current topic, so I might not be familiar with the current ptx DAs or topic specific CPs, but I'll try my best. Please make them clear.

This won't be the most in depth paradigm so if you have any questions you're more than welcome to ask me :).

My email: cliu0075@gmail.com (please add me to the email chain)

General Paradigm - I'm a tabs judge, I'll be flowing the round by hand so it's important you make your taglines and arguments as clear as you can to me so I can get them down. I was more of a policy debater in high school than a K debater, so those are the arguments I'm most comfortable with. If you are going to run a K, framework is super important for me, otherwise I get a little lost in it all. IMPACT CALC IS ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS I'LL VOTE ON (after all the a priori issues), DON'T FORGET TO DO IT. I don't time flashing as prep, I actually think that's really cruel, as long as no one is prepping while you're trying to flash, even if it's taking you a while I won't take away your prep. Also if you're an ass in round you won't automatically lose but you will lose an astronomical amount of speaker points so I would suggest just trying to rein it in and be polite. If you're gonna do a lot of jumping around on a flow, your signposting needs to be obvious, otherwise I might miss stuff or flow it incorrectly.

Tag teaming - Fine with me, as long as you're not taking over your partner's CX time (which will hurt your speaks a lot) then it's good.

Spreading - It's fine with me if you spread, I just ask that you slow down for taglines since I'm still a little rusty.

Speaker points - I generally give high speaker points because I don't really think they indicate that much. As long as you're not rude you'll probably get 27+ in speaker points. I sometimes give out 30s if you were a stellar debater who was easy to follow on the flow, it's not that rare but it also isn't super common. I'm easily impressed so don't worry about your speaks.

CX Debate -

DAs, CPs, T - These are all free game with me, I was more of a policy debater in high school than a K debater so this is where I'm most comfortable. Politics DAs, Topic DAs, any kind of CP is fine with me.

T - Unless the affirmative is blatantly untopical, I generally err aff on T for reasonability, but again, if you argue it well enough I can be swayed.

Theory - Theory is good with me as well, but I'm not super well-versed with more complex theory shells. Here are some of my preferences for generic theories being run:

Condo - I generally lean neg on condo, obviously I can be swayed if you argue it well enough.

Perfcon - If you're running this against neg, I won't evaluate it, multiple worlds solves it well enough for me.

Spec - Never ran spec, never really debated against it. I have no clue what a proper shell looks like. I'm under the impression it's similar to T.

K's - Not super experienced in these, although I did debate them quite a bit. Framework is really important to me for both sides on a K, it helps me keep track of it better, and in my opinion it makes the K's a lot easier to evaluate. K affs are something I'm pretty unfamiliar with so I would argue I'm not the best judge for K affs.

Sorry for the short and abbreviated paradigm, if you have any questions I will be more than happy to answer them before round.

LD Debate -

Still a tabs judge

Value/Criterion - I only ever did LD my novice year and only debated lay. I understand the value/criterion debate but there's going to be a lot of them that I haven't heard of, so a definition/description would be great.

Progressive LD - Policy gave me a new appreciation for progressive LD. If you want to run a plan, CPs, DAs, go crazy. I'm most comfortable with those concepts but traditional/lay LD is fine with me too.

Burdens - I'll buy the burdens when you present them. If no one ever brings them up again throughout the entirety of the round I will no longer consider the burden and it will be purely flow debate. If you don't agree with the burden your opponent has set then you have to argue it and tell me why it's bad/unfair or else I'm going to hold you to that burden.

PF Debate -

I've never done PF before, I have no real experience with it. At this point, I've judged PF quite a few times so I have an idea of what to look for in debates. I'm still a huge tabs judge, and I'm not too keen on doing the work for you. If you have a good argument but you're not cross applying it to other contentions I won't do it for you, even if I think it does a good job of answering said argument.

Impacts - Give me impact calculus, magnitude, timeframe, probability. I don't really care about the numbers in the evidence because I think the statistics are pretty arbitrary, but if you make a big enough deal about outweighing on magnitude due to the numbers I'll still consider it.

I have three main criteria for any argument. Clarity, evidence, and structure.

Clarity: Your arguments have to be clear and concise. If you stumble over your words it makes it harder for me to understand your points, but on the flip side, if you are very clear but speak too long on a point that isn't relevant then I will lose interest. So, I would caution against using big words unless you know how to read them. It looks like you copied and pasted evidence when there are words in your speech that you clearly don't know. And when you spread out a point longer than it needs to be it looks like you are filling your time for lack of evidence.

Evidence: Every debate is a clean slate, I leave my bias aside, so convince me why you are right. I don't care what side you are on, all I want is that you can present evidence that flows logically. Pathos can really help your argument, but only if you back it up with evidence, so be careful of using emotional appeal to carry your argument.

Structure: Clear structure is just as important as clear speaking and clear evidence. You can be a brilliant presenter and have good evidence, but if I can't follow you through your arguments I won't be convinced by your points. So, be careful not to over use rhetoric that you don't know how to incorporate it into your speech. I want to see a clear road map that helps me to identify your main ideas and follow your evidence.

Lastly, Speech and Debate should be fun, so don't let the pressure get to you. Enjoy yourself! Feel free to make jokes, as long as they are appropriate and relevant to the topic, and enjoy the round.

If you have questions about ballots or need more information please email me at ethan@cyberhedge.net

I prefer a good communication style but I do flow well and follow the issues so that there can be a good debate and analysis between the teams.

I was never a competitor.

This is my 6th year judging HS speech and debate and first year as a Coach

I do not like spreading.

LD Debate:

I take framework into consideration, but not as much as arguments.

Policy Debate:

I prefer quality and content over speed. I can usually follow , but I want to understand your argument, not just hear it.

Kritiks are not welcome.

Hey y'all,

I'm a coach and competed for 8 years. I vote on persuasion through links, impacts, and comms. The more work you do the less work I have to do, meaning the less chance I have to reach my own conclusion. Help me help you.

I appreciate logical arguments and sound reasoning. Please be polite and respectful of each other. I will flow your arguments but appreciate direct sign posts and also a moderate speed (not too slow, but no spreading please). I’m a former high school policy debater, so I’ve been in your shoes and appreciate the effort and preparation required for debate.

I expect professionalism at all times from all involved - competitors, judges, and observers are expected to be respectful of themselves and one another, and of the judge.  Please speak slowly and clearly, I need to be able to hear and understand everything you say. I am happy to keep time for you, or you can keep your own, just tell me what you prefer.  I will keep time for my own awareness either way.  If someone goes over time, it is my job to call it, not the opponent.  Make sure your contentions are clear.  Thank you!

I am a newer judge. I judge on the clarity of arguments and speaking skills. Please signpost clearly. Don't be rude. Have fun!

First and foremost:

I like rounds to be fast and efficient. Do not ask if I am ready, I am always ready. Unless your opponent specifically wants to be asked, do not ask if they are ready as well. Just don't ask if anyone is ready. Roadmaps are okay. Yes time yourselves. I will probably drop you if you use the Idaho debate code as an argument. Rule violations are not to be handled during your speeches. If you use it as an argument I am just going to assume you were not prepared enough to have an actual attack.

LD: I will weigh the round based on the Value/Criterion and voters. Explain your v/c and why it is pertinent to the resolution also be sure to tell me why you win based on the v/c. I don't like to see a lot of clash on the v/c unless someone runs an abusive one. I think that good debaters are able to show how they win on both the AFF and NEG v/c. But as I said, if someone is being abusive, feel free to call that out. Please be clear with signposting. Please provide a clear voter speech (tell me how you win on the v/c and other aspects of the round.) I also love to see impacts. Plans and Counter Plans are ok with me! I think that it adds an interesting element to the debate. I am absolutely NOT OKAY with kritiks. I love to see impacts.

PF: I will weigh the round based on the Resolutional Analysis and voters. Explain your RA and why it is pertinent to the resolution also be sure to tell me why you win based on the RA. I don't like to see a lot of clash on the RA unless someone runs an abusive one. I think that good debaters are able to show how they win on both the PRO and CON RA. But as I said, if someone is being abusive, feel free to call that out. Please do not run values, that's for LD. Please be clear with signposting. Please provide a clear voter speech (tell me how you win on the RA and other aspects of the round.) I also love to see impacts and impact calc.

Policy: I am absolutely NOT OKAY with kritiks. Please don't run them if you run them. I don't care for "education in debate" args. However, If someone is being abusive feel free to explain how. I am okay with speed but do not talk so fast to the point you are wheezing. Just be understandable. Have impacts and have voters. Be consistent with your plan and counter plan. Constantly remind me why I should care about them or should not care about your opponents. I will weigh the round based on the superior plan or cp.

Experience: Sixth year judging high school debate ... still just a mom judge.

Paradigm: I'm going to vote on the flow, and clash. Crystallize! Quality is better than Quantity for Voters.

I'm fine with spreading, just make sure I catch your tag lines if you want it on my flow. You can run Theory and/or Kritic to your heart's content. Don't get mad at me if I don't get the point ... it is your job to sell it, I'm not required to buy it.

Background: I have been coaching for nearly 30 years - a combination of coaching at Boise State University for the Talkin' Broncos (15 years) and now 14+ years at the high school level.

Overall Debate Philosophy/Preferences: I believe debate is a game we play with our friends, so please respectfully present your arguments but do so in a way that is positive and reflects well on this activity. I appreciate organization, tell me where your clash is, and impact out your points. Tell me WHY your arguments and points take priority or should be considered above those of your counterparts.

Policy Debate: I am fine with moderate speed. If I can't understand or follow you, I will stop flowing the round. Great debate can be won or loss in cross-examination. Ask pertinent questions, answer directly. I prefer stock issues but am open to most arguments if you can JUSTIFY why it is preferred.

PF/LD Debate: As these debate formats ask you to perform specific duties, it is imperative that you meet that expectation for me to win my ballot. In LD, make sure you link your value and criterion to all your contentions. I must hear impacts - don't leave it to me to do your work. Don't just give me tag lines and evidence and expect me to figure it out. That is your job! In PF, each debater has a very specific role so make sure to fulfill it. Case, Rebuttal, Summary, and Final Focus are each important and a well-balanced team tends to look better.

Congressional Debate: Be professional, well organized when speaking, ask pertinent questions, and stay engaged throughout the session and you'll move up in chamber rank. Be that representative that takes the other side and challenge your fellow reps. I enjoy clash, respectfully done, and be the consummate debater and colleague.

Summation: I believe that Debate, in any format, is a combination of research, organization, refutation, and being stylistic. For organizations' sake, please road map and sign post, provide a brief summary conclusion that leaves me impressed with your skills as a public speaker, strong researcher, and believing your arguments and impacts.

Be brilliant, be persuasive, be nice. Your fellow debaters, no matter where they are from, are your friends!

I am an assistant coach with ten years of experience judging debate.

I will judge on the flow and am open to most kinds of arguments. Make sure you connect the dots (tell me how it connects to your case). I am fine with speed, although sometimes speakers are not as clear as they think they are.

Although I like lots of clash, please clash politely with your opponents. I want to hear you address your opponent’s arguments meaningfully. Tell me why winning dropped arguments wins the debate for you. Give me the impact of those dropped arguments.

For LD, know and understand your arguments. Then explain and link them to your value and criterion for me.

I want you to give me clear, impactful voters. Why did you win?

Have fun!

Debate experience:
4 years nat circ / varsity policy at Derby High School in Derby, KS ????Formerly known as Jack Sallman

A little LD, world schools at nationals twice, basic understanding of PFD

MY PRONOUNS ARE HE/HIM

Put me on the email chain. Send docs before the speech, not after. Jacksallmandebate@gmail.com

Always feel free to email me with questions or feedback !

open cx is fine, off time flashing and road maps are fine idc

A few things:

Debate however you feel comfortable. I enjoy many different styles of argumentation and debate. If you're critical or policy, TOC or KDC, or literally any style of debating, my job as the judge is to adapt to your style.

Email chains/flashing: If I (or the other team) ask you to flash/share your speech doc and you refuse, speaker points will face consequences.

Post-rounding: I don't mind providing feedback or answering questions. Any post rounding that gets out of hand/aggressive, I will shut down though. It's a genuine trigger for me, and I also feel like blowing up on your judge is not productive.

Speed: Go as fast as you want, but please be clear. With me, I don't care if you're slow or fast, because I think efficiency is more important than speed.

I start speaks at 28 and work my way up or down.

Manners? : I think being assertive is good. If you're a jerk though, I'll drop your speaks. Don't be a bigot.

T

Competing interps is probably better than reasonability, but you've got to do your work. Please do your impacts and standards work or I'll die on the inside. Crafty we meets are awesome. Tell me why I prefer your interp. Shot gun T isn't one of my favorites, but I'll still listen to it.

DA

I love DA debates, as long as the DA isn't entirely horrible or you can do the work for it (Flashback to no DA ground on CJR topic). I default more to magnitude and probability debates. Brink arguments can be important. Aff, turn the DA. Neg, explain WHY the DA outweighs and turns the case. Specific links are great. I don't default automatically to util or deontology, I will evaluate with the lenses that wins on the framing debate. I LOVE DAs for K affs or on FW.

CP

POST the cp, but I wouldn't spend too much time on theory unless if you're going for condo. I tend to lean towards reject arg not team unless if the aff proves I should reject the team. The CP needs a net benefit. Aff, explain the perm. DON'T FORGET TO PUT OFFENSE ON THE CP!!!! Neg, I won't judge kick the cp unless explicitly told to and I feel it is right. Also if you can prove the CP links to the net bens, mwah!!! Do it! Ngl tho, cp debate isn't my favorite but don't let that discourage you! I will still vote on CPs.

K

Hell yeah. I've run Queer Theory, Capitalism, Derrida, Militarism, Security, Abolition, Anthro, Disability, Biopower, Set Col, etc. Basically, I love K debate. Performance K's, Rep K's, Academic approach K's, etc. are all fine with me. I am not strongly familiar with Baudrillard or Deleuze, however. If you want to attempt that route, feel free, but buckle down to explain more than a judge who is a Baudrillard hack. TBH most K's I can grasp fairly quickly. If you have any questions about this or if I know anything about a specific area of literature, either shoot me an email or ask me before the round.

K aff/FW

FW - I think clash is the important part here. Prob should read state inev, convince me why your interp o/w. TBH I don't think Affs need a w/m here, just a counter interp. I think if you find crafty ways to turn the DAs the aff will inevitably put on FW, DO IT. On a side note, Affs, put good DAs on FW. Side note.... FW doesn't only have to be T-USFG...

K affs -hell yeah. I read a queer anarchism academia aff my senior year, if that says anything, and my teammates read a Foucault Will of the Sovereign k aff. If you can effectively explain your case and win FW, you're good. I don't care if your aff does or doesn't have an advocacy, but be prepared to have that debate. Also read "K" header for more info literature wise. I think that preempting FW and other args in the 1AC is smart, and while I don't require it with my approach, topic specific affs are good. If you're not topic specific, that's still aight. I'll listen to most things -- but be ready for that debate with the neg.

Theory

I think most theory except condo is good enough for rejecting the arg not the team. This doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't attempt theory debate -- go for it if that's your heart's desire. Please don't be blippy on these theory debates and sending those blocks could be good. Even the best flow out there won't catch all of your arguments if you spread full speed through theory blocks.

It's a Great Day to be a Panther

If you talk too fast, I'm not going to follow it. Be respectful, but clash is okay.

Please speak slowly and clearly, I need to be able to hear and understand everything you say. I evaluate whether you convinced me that your position is more true than your competitor. Professionalism, respect, and good sportsmanship is a must.

Hi, I'll make this short and simple.

I have been doing mostly LD debate for the past four years and managed to learn the ins and outs of the format. In order to win my vote I suggest you clearly outline impacts and tie your v/c into your case,. I am what you might consider to be a flow judge. You can self-time, and I do prefer brief off time road maps. With all that being said please be respectful of each other.

While there may be other formats that I am going to be judging today, please understand that I may not be well-versed in things like policy or congress. Public Forum and LD are the two formats I am most comfortable judging.

If you have any further questions please ask before round, as I understand this paradigm might be a bit loose and vague.