LD is Value Debate. Propositions of Value

CX is Policy Debate. Propositions of Policy

Currently attending Notre Dame studying Philosophy and Computer Science. I debated at BK (2017-2018) in PF and Jenks (2018-2021) in LD.

I generally have exposure to all types of arguments and styles. Just run whatever you're comfortable with. I'm okay with speed - I'll yell clear twice before I just drop my pen.

For zoom tournaments, I have a strong preference for there to be a chain. Please put me on it: ncoffman22@gmail.com

General debate things:

1. Tech > Truth

2. Evidence ethics is important. Don't clip, don't miscite, don't misquote. Any of these can result in an autolose.

3. If my ballot is not plagiarized from the 2NR/2AR, something is wrong.

4. I give a lot of credence to high evidence quality and good evidence comparison.

5. Time yourself.

6. I will disclose my decision.

Traditional LD/PF:

- If you signpost, extend your arguments, try not to drop stuff, and give an offensive reason why I should vote for you as opposed to a defensive one, you'll be in very good shape. (Offense = why I'm winning, Defense = why I'm not losing)

- I generally evaluate things sequentially. I use who's value/criterion or framework is winning to determine which arguments and impacts to weigh and subsequently who's won the ballot. This means framework in and of itself is not a voter, but it has a massive impact on who wins my ballot, i.e., if you're winning the aff leads to extinction but you've conceded a Kant FW, you'll probably lose.

- Specifically for PF, I will default to a comparative worlds paradigm and util in the absence of any framework. I have a preference for frameworks being read in PF, but its not a deal breaker if you don't.

- Good debaters have consistency between their value/criterion or framework and their contentions. If you're reading Kant and then a bunch of util arguments, I might cry.

- Paraphrasing evidence in cases is a terrible norm. It allows debaters to lie about what authors have never said and embellish what they have said. I am not going to drop you for paraphrasing, but your evidence will hold less weight on my ballot and it will be held to the standard of cut cards, i.e., if I read an article you paraphrased and it does not say exactly what you said it did, it's off my flow.

Schools/Affiliations: Program Manager - Tulsa Debate League, Coach - Charles Page HS - Coach Webster HS

I competed in policy debate in high school for 4 years, advancing to late rounds at nationals

I’ve coached, in one role or another, for 22 years

General Paradigm
Left to my own devices, I’d approach the round from a policymaking point of view, but I know that few rounds boil down to such a paradigm. In light of that, debate is a game of sorts and I’m willing to let the debaters decide how it should be played. I can’t see myself voting against an affirmative on a stock issue like inherency.

Speed
Clarity, of course, is key. If I can’t understand you, then I can’t flow you and I likely won’t be inclined to vote for you or the position(s) I don’t understand. Look for cues (not flowing, a blank look on my face).

Line by Line
I prefer line by line debate. I believe you need to flow and I don’t think a team is obligated to share analytical arguments in a flash/speech doc. If the debate becomes disorganized because of your inability to stay on the flow, that’ll likely cost you in some way. Debate, at its essence, is about a clash of ideas...therefore clash is an essential ingredient to a good debate round. A round between two teams who neither extend their own arguments, nor address the specific attacks made on these arguments, is not a debate round, and such a round begs for intervention on my part.

Decision Calculus
I am loathe to intervene in a round, but will do so if neither team presents a clear comparative analysis of the issues in the round. You need to tell my why I should vote for you and make that clear in the final rebuttals.

Framework
I’ll start with my paradigm, you tell me where to move to, and convince me of why I should do so, if you’d like to change the framework. Any framework should make it possible for both sides to win and shouldn’t be rooted in a rejection of debate as an activity (though it’s possible I could be convinced otherwise).

Topicality (or any other procedural/theory argument)

I will vote on topicality. I think the negative has to construct a fully formed argument to convince me I should do so, complete with a reason that the violation committed by the affirmative is worthy of giving them the loss. I’m not as inclined to be convinced by a reverse voter argument in t, but affirmatives can defend themselves by attacking one or all of the components of a typical T argument and win the issue. Other procedurals tend to get decided based on actual, rather than, potential abuse.

Kritiks

I debated before kritiks were a thing, so that’s fair warning. Having said that, I’ve voted on them many times, but profess a lack of deep knowledge on some of the more theoretical positions. Deep theory, you’ll have to tell me what to do. Despite my knowledge about some of the authors and their positions, I’m usually able to discern when the student speaking knows as little or less than I do. I prefer that if you’re going to make the k an issue, that you know it inside and out, and be aware of the inherent dangers in speaking quickly to a judge who may know less than you do, and who you are trying to convince. Real world alts are pretty much a requirement.


Performance
Do what you will, I’ll listen. Prefer they be relevant to topic.

Counterplans
I am good with counterplans, conditional is fine, but don’t get too feisty in this regard. Deep counterplan and pic theory give me headaches, so slow down and talk me through it.

Multiple Worlds

No thanks...multiple conditional positions are fine, but not contradictory advocacy. Can’t be convinced otherwise on the matter so save your time.

3NRs and My Decision
I will give an oral critique if time allows and reveal decision if permitted by tourney expectations, but I will not enter into an argument with either team about my decision. I can handle a question or two, but make sure it’s a question. Look, I am always going to do my best, but I’m sure I’ve gotten the decision wrong a time or two, and I hate it when I do. That being said, my usual answer when teams argue why they lost is: I’d feel the same way if I were you, but next time debate better. Then I mark their speaker points down for being rude. Live to fight another day, and be aware that you might see your judge again down the road.

Prep Time

i will be lenient as we learn the online format, but that being said, I’m losing patience with the time taken up by flashing files even during in-person debates. Be efficient.

I'm a coach and like more traditional LD. I'm not a fan of spreading in LD. This form of debate gives you a chance to shine as a good speaker. Being respectful is a must. There's no need to be derogatory to your opponent. Looking for strong framework and a full understanding of your case. Even if you didn't write your case you have to be able to express what it means in your own words. I love a good clash so bring it. Far fetched arguments with no backing just to mess up your opponent isn't impressive. I like strong substantiated arguments and your evidence better be legit.

My history is in Policy Debate. I care about strong, straightforward cases. If you're going to spread, do it well. If you want to run a K, you must do so fabulously for me to be able to vote on it. Be clear, be concise, use the time you have in speeches, and don't drop points. If something gets dropped, it's off my flow and no part of it will be picked up again or placed on the flow later in the round. Going nuclear/extinction is never going to gain you points from me; it's more likely to lose you some.

LD/PF: I flow diligently, but I want you to speak pretty, too. I'm okay with speed, but not spreading. Don't make warrantless claims, please. I'll listen to any idea, no matter how bizarre, if you have cards for it. Be polite and sportsmanlike, above all else.

WSD: I'm most often a PF/LD judge. I want you to use lots of examples to illustrate claims you're making. This format of debate is 50% longer than the 40-ish minute attention span that PF and LD have cultivated in me as a judge, so I want you to speak engagingly. Command the room.

CX: I'm a traditional judge all the way. I do not care at all for jargon. This is a speaking activity; go slow and be clear and I'll flow it. Explain it to me like I'm 5.

About Me: I'm Bailey McBride (she/her), and I'm the marketing and communications manager for a beverage distribution company. I competed in LD and PF debate for 4 years of high school (Bishop Kelley, OK), and was the 2007 Oklahoma LD State Champion and a top 5 finisher in DEX. I went to Nationals in Student Congress. I also competed in DEX, FEX, and all drama categories at some point in that time. I debated 3 years in college (University of Arkansas).

FOR LD DEBATES:

I prefer a traditional framework, with clear contentions and signposting throughout the round. Remember that LD is value-based, so I will be looking for you to carry your Value/Criterion through the entire round and link all arguments back to this value. Your argument should have a solid framework to support it and it should be topical. I am looking for big picture arguments, so please don't get lost in the minute details or you will lose me. Explain, support, and defend each of your arguments. Show me how your argument applies to the topic, your position, your opponent's position, and the impacts (and please name these clearly). Please speak at a reasonable speed for me to flow by hand--if you go too fast, I will miss your argument and can't consider it in my final decision. If you get into a back and forth about "cards" and waste your time on that over the greater issue of the round, I will not consider that compelling. Please have voting issues.

FOR PF DEBATES:

Public Forum debate should be conversational, respectful, and engaging. I'm looking for strong initial arguments that will be crystallized as the round goes on, and will flow through anything that is not addressed by Summary. I am looking for big picture arguments, so please don't get lost in the minute details or you will lose me. Explain, support, and defend each of your arguments. Show me how your argument applies to the topic, your position, your opponent's position, and the impacts (and please name these clearly). Please speak at a reasonable speed for me to flow by hand--if you go too fast, I will miss your argument and can't consider it in my final decision.

I absolutely cannot judge spreading. My brain does not absorb argument that fast, so slow down for the old folks.

CX

I do not have a great deal of experience with CX so an emphasis on tag lines helps.

I understand better when you explain the harms and solvency of your plan. Same goes for counter-plan.

I appreciate debate on topicality, but please don't waste a great deal of time there...especially on repetitive argument.

LD

I clearly want to see that the debate is concerning a moral issue- not one of policy. Do argue value and criterion. Credibility of sources may outweigh more recent dates. Do not get sucked into your opponents spreading by thinking you have to address every argument he/she brought up...I probably didn't understand them all anyway. You will win more points from me by adhering to my request for reasonable speed.

PF

Convince me.

I do flow, but only what I hear.

I do time, but that's addressed later in the paradigm.

I am ready before each speech so just debate like I'm not there.

I WILL VOTE ON THE FRAMEWORK MOST OF THE TIME.

My LD paradigm is super simple. I'm okay with all types of arguments as long you can prove a strong value/criterion link. I'm a traditional LD Judge, I won't knock progressive but I do ask that you are clear in your argumentation. I flow and I expect arguments to not be dropped and extended throughout the round. Besides that, I enjoy a fun round so don't be rude but don't be passive. Again I'm open to whatever just make sure that your arguments are clear, logical, and have a strong Value/Criterion Link. Please don't say your card names, say the argument. I do not flow card names if you say "refer to my john 3:16 card" I will have no clue what you're talking about, but if you say "refer to x argument" I'll be on board. As a traditional judge, I like hearing some philosophy. I am not a philosophy expert but I do know the major points of the more used arguments and I wont count it as part of the RFD unless your opponent calls it out. If they don't then run with it I guess.

PF is very similar, hit me with your creative arguments. I generally vote for winners based on which team can either give me the bigger impacts or who can give me a good amount of strong arguments. IF YOU SPREAD IN PUBLIC FORUM I WILL NOT FLOW. I AM A PF PURIST. DO NOT SPREAD I WILL TRULY LOOK AT YOU AND MAYBE WRITE ONE THING. IF YOU ARE A PFER AND SAY USE A PHILOSOPHY FRAMEWORK I WILL NOT APPRECIATE IT. PF IS FOR THE LAY JUDGE. TREAT ME LIKE A LAY JUDGE.

Also if you are reading this, just an FYI please TIME yourselves so I don't have to interrupt you. Again I'm super laid back so just make sure that arguments are very clear and logical.

CX is not my favorite so I have no real paradigm for it. Just tell me why your arguments are good. I like Ks but I hate nukes(extinction).

As you can tell by this paradigm that I'm somewhat lazy. So if you have any specific questions feel free to ask before the round AND do not be afraid to ask me what you can improve AFTER (LIKE IN THE HALLWAYS) the round or for advice.

If you try to post-round or debate me because of the results of the ballot, I will shut it down immediately but feel free to ask for critiques.

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.

This will be my 2nd ear judging. Being relatively new to judging, I really appreciate when the flow of the debate or forum is clearly called out (i.e. contentions, subpoints, voting issues). If I have to guess whether or not a competitor clearly rebutted a contention, or is stating a voting issue, I often assume it was not addressed.