Last changed on
Fri February 9, 2024 at 4:54 AM EDT
Heya! Just a friendly reminder to chill and have fun. Good luck! 
Background:
I’ve debated 3 years of LD and 1 year of PF at Bettendorf High School.
Speaks:
(PF) Base speaks start at 27. I choose raise or lower based on strategy on flow, being able to be slow and clear, word economy, GOOD WARRANTING, etc. I’m alright with reasonably fast speeds. I’m only ok with hardcore spreading if
- It’s an outround
- If all the judges, debaters, and possible audience members give their ok as well.
- You disclose.
(LD) Base speaks start at 27. I choose raise or lower mainly based on strategy on flow. I'm ok with spreading, just make sure your opponent is ok with it as well. I’ll yell "clear" if I have to. Just disclose the doc to me if you can.
What I’d like to see in a PF round:
TLDR version:
Crystalize to main 1 or 2 impacts -----X------------------- Not collapsing
More args on flow to make ur opp inevitably drop one -----------------------X- Less args but better quality
Flow based ---X--------------------- Non flow
Stock args ----------X-------------- Weirder args
Taking time to check evidence X------------------------ “You’re wasting my time”
Necessary spreading ------------X------------ Normal/slower speaking speed
Sole contention case --X---------------------- Too many contentions
Will listen to CX -----X------------------- Won’t listen to CX
Theory ---------------X--------- Anything else
Non-TLDR version:
-Give me a roadmap and signpost clearly.
-I’m a flow based judge. Which means some real BS can start if you miss a really important FW/observation.
-2nd speaking team should cover both sides of the flow in rebuttal.
-Choose whether or not you go line-by-line or collapse to a specific arg. However, I HIGHLY VALUE WELL EXPLAINED WARRANTS AND WEIGHING. The clearest, sole reason for why I should vote for you in summary/FF is the best way to win the ballot.
-I’m open to any type of unique/weird argument, but I prefer really well run stock args. Don’t waste my time with poorly run theory/K shells unless you are absolutely committed to making debate better and more accessible.
-I will allow first speaking teams to extend defense from rebuttal to FF but it isn’t preferred.
-CX does affect speaks. Avoiding the question, not giving an answer, not being productive, or just being plain rude will tank points.
-Evidence is SUPER IMPORTANT. Call for it and take your time. I dare you. I’m not afraid to intervene and drop a team if the evidence doesn’t say what it is supposed to say.
What I’d like to see in a LD round:
TLDR version:
Tech ---X--------------------- Truth
Policy ---------------X--------- K
Theory ----------------------X-- Substance
More cards ---------------X--------- Less cards
Conditionality bad ---------------X--------- Conditionality good
Topical case ---------X--------------- Non topical cases
Fairness is internal link -----------------------X- Fairness is an impact
Line by line -----X------------------- Long overviews
Phil cases X------------------------ Literally anything else
Non-TLDR version:
-I'm much more accepting of the line by line in LD instead of a super long overview. This doesn't exclude basic weighing tho.
-I really really love well run stock phil cases.
-I also love Ks -Policy type args like DAs and CPs are also fine.
-Honestly, I’d prefer if you don’t go into a theory/T debate. If there is significant abuse occurring, go for it.
-Overall, just have good impacts/analysis. If you are an ex-policy debater who is really bad with comparing warrants/impacts of a stock Kant NC, you will lose the round. Framework makes the game work.
-I won’t hold it against you or anything but plz disclose if you can.
If you are a novice:
-Just remember to WEIGH your case vs your opponents (use the word weigh).
-Also to EXPLAIN what your arguments and show how it impacts the round as a whole. Don’t just repeat your claim.
