Experience & Education
Carrollton HS Speech & Debate '08-'12.
CHS S&D (Assistant Coach) '12-'16.
-
BS Political Science - University of West Georgia '16
Master of Public Policy - Georgia State University '20

~~~

PF: I prefer that PF stays as close to it's original intent (in terms of the use of debate theory, jargon, etc.) as possible - i.e., I should be able to judge this round as a layperson with no prior knowledge of the high school debate space. If you're going to spend a considerable amount of time between speeches calling for cards please weigh every card you've asked for.

LD: I appreciate as much of a straightforward framework and/or case debate as you can give me.

Hello my name is Gabby Berger. I'm a varisty public forum debater at Midtown High School. Keep track of your own time and speak clearly, especially since competitions are virtual. If you have any other questions let me know.

Hi! Im a Varsity Public Forum speaker, I have been debating for 6 years and really enjoy debate! I applaud those who can speak fast but what I cannot hear I cannot flow, so have clarity. I do not flow cross, so if something you belive something has flowed to your side, bring it up in speech. Keep track of your own time. I enjoy good back and forth so have clash but don't get side tracked on one point. Don't be overly aggressive to your opponents, everyone is here to have fun :)

Please treat me like a lay judge.

I will vote on arguments I find more persuasive

I'm a first year out, debated three years at Milton High School.

General

Add me to email chains: akaash.dash@gmail.com

Tech > Truth

Don't be unsportsmanlike please.

Bonus speaks for sending me your case before round.

I will try to disclose and give my RFD in round.

Crossfire

I will pay attention to crossfire. Anything said in crossfire is binding, but I would prefer if it is brought up in following speeches.

Be aggressive, but make sure to be respectful.

All members must participate to some extent in GCX, including second speakers.

Speaking

Speed is fine, just make sure you are being clear. This is especially important in online debates.

Speeches

Extending throughout, signposting, and impact calculus are very important - tell me how to flow/vote.

Everything in FF must be in summary.

Second rebuttal should respond to first rebuttal.

Theory/K's

Not really experienced with theory/K's so I would say avoid running them.

I am a parent with a degree in Engineering and an MBA. I currently work as a Client Partner at a Technology and C level recruiting firm.

I have a solid understanding of global topics and I am an avid reader. I will look for strong content from both sides to come to my conclusion.

I have been doing PF debate for a little over 4 years. I know what a PF debate should look like and do not appreciate Debate Theory.

Don't lie or misconstrue evidence. If it seems like you are misusing evidence then I will probably call for the card at the end of the round. Don't be afraid to call for your opponent's card during cross-fire if their argument seems extreme.

I don't flow cross-fire. If you think something happened in cross-fire that improves your argument then reiterate that in your speeches.

Finally, I will not flow anything said after your time is up so make sure you time yourself and know how much time you have for each speech.

Background - PhD in science and engineering (materials, chemical)

Debate judge for a few years - judged middle school and high school debates

I will flow the round

For me:

tech > truth

clear/structured > compiling/spreading

cards/logic reasoning > buzz words/waving hands

Public speaking > screen reading

Respect to other team > aggressive

Get permission first > say sorry later

I value clear and concise arguments and responses with strong cards or logic reasoning. Compiling/spreading is not encouraged.

If your opponent wins one link in a link chain, then you can not use your impact. Make sure that the links are for your side in order for your impact to stand.

Make sure that your impacts are clearly stated. I do not want to guess what your impact is. Tell me what it is clearly.

If you give me a framework, tell me why the framework should be there. Explain why the framework works in the resolution and why the framework will benefit the round.

I will not view what you say in cross-fire for the actual debate unless the point is brought up in speeches.

In rebuttal, if you are planning to respond, give me clear signposting on what your response is. Don't just repeat your contentions again as that is not responding to what your opponent is saying.

Make sure you extend your contentions throughout the debate. In summary, you should extend your contentions and collapse if you want. I want weighing in summary on the impacts. Tell me why your impact is more important than the opponents' impact.

I value probability > magnitude and scope. If something will not happen, then there is no magnitude or scope. Make sure you prove that your impact has a probable chance.

I want voting issues in final focus to help me understand your main arguments. Tell me what is important in final focus so I know what to judge off of.

My background derives mostly from debating in policy for 4 years of high school. I am open to any field of argument (critique, topicality, theory, etc.), as long as it is done effectively. I evaluate debates based on an even combination of tech and truth, but if one team can provide better defense and description of their argument's impacts, almost any argument could win in front of me. Be sure to make comparison between your final advocacy and your opponents in order to persuade me to vote for you. Do not just restate your arguments with no clash with your opponents.

With regards to PF/LD debates - I have judged both divisions extensively. Similar to my policy opinions, I place a substantial importance on articulating the impacts to your argument. Beyond just "economic decline", what are the particular details of that scenario that should convince me to vote for you? Beyond just "fairness in debate", what are the particular repercussions of that lack of fairness in the activity?

Be sure to extend the warrants in your evidence, a simple tag line extension is hardly an argument.

Currently a freshman at UGA, debated 4 years in PF at Sequoyah, my email is tel.4704213575@gmail.com for an evidence chain.

(This paradigm is mostly advice for novice, varsity just know I'm basically flay, summary defense is sticky, I'll hear out theory and Ks but not a lot of experience with it so run it at your own risk, also do not paraphrase your case evidence)

General:

• If you are going to spread make sure it's okay with your opponents first
• Tech>Truth but make sure your arguments are clearly warranted and make sense
• I'll keep your prep and time if you want but it makes things easier if you do as well
• Don't be rude - crossfires can get heated, but there's no reason to be screaming at your opponents or unnecessarily condescending
• Please be organized - I don't care too much about order, but if it's all over the place I'm going to struggle to follow along
• I won't pay much attention to crossfires, if something significant happens please acknowledge it in the following speech
• Please don't take forever to send cards if someone calls for them
• Don't lie about evidence - I will probably notice and vote you down
• Speaks do not determine a round, but be clear and organized with good warranting and I will give you high speaks
• I'm fine with post-rounding, but it will never change my decision

Constructive:

Give me well explained and warranted arguments with clearly implicated impacts. I don't care if you disclose or not, but you need to use carded evidence and not paraphrased. (Send me a copy if you're gonna spread or if you have like a million arguments)

Rebuttal:

My preference is carded, well explained blocks; don't just spew evidence at me, tell me why the evidence blocks their arguments. Logical analysis is okay, but if you don't have at least some evidence backing it up I'm unlikely to buy it. Don't just cross apply your case, I want to hear real responses to their argument. Please go line by line, tell me what specifically you are responding to, and go in the order of their case. Second speaking team must give frontlines (ideally in the beginning of their rebuttal), and first speaking team should weigh if they have extra time.

Summary:

Make sure to extend everything you want me to weigh on very clearly; if I don't hear it in summary I won't factor it into my decision. Second speaking team cannot bring up new evidence or arguments, but new frontlines are okay. Make sure to extend clear impacts and do lots of comparative weighing - tell me specifically why your arguments are more important than your opponents.

Final Focus:

Same idea as summary here; make sure to clearly extend arguments and responses, but I won't flow anything that wasn't also brought up in summary. Try to save lots of time for weighing - don't spend all your time extending, weighing is the most important part of FF. Make it very clear what I should vote on, and please extend your impacts, I can't vote for you if you don't have impacts.

If you're running an email chain, please add me: Andrewgollner@gmail.com

he/him

About me: I debated one year of PF and three years of policy at Sequoyah High, and I debated three year of college policy at the University of Georgia. I was a 2N that generally runs policy offcase positions but, especially earlier in my debate career, I ran many critical positions. I'll try to be expressive during the round so that you can discern how I am receiving your arguments.

Judge Preferences: On a personal level, please be kind to your opponents. I dislike it when a team is unnecessarily rude or unsportsmanlike. I am completely willing to discuss my decision about a round in between rounds, so please ask me if you want me to clarify my decision or would like advice. You can email me any questions you have.

FOR PF/LD:

I am primarily a policy judge. This means

1. I am more comfortable with a faster pace. While I don't like the idea of spreading in PF and LD I can handle a faster pace.

2. I am decently technical. If an argument is dropped point it out, make sure I can draw a clean line through your speeches.

3. I am less used to theory backgrounds in your form of debate, slow down and explain these.

4. Ask me any specific questions you have.

FOR POLICY:

I recognize that my role is to serve as a neutral arbiter without predispositions towards certain arguments, but as this goal is elusive the following are my gut reactions to positions. I strive to ensure that any position (within reason, obviously not obscene or offensive) is a possible path to victory in front of myself.

CP: I love a well written CP which is tailored to your opponent's solvency advocate and that can be clearly explained and is substantiated by credible evidence. If your CP is supported by 1AC solvency evidence, I will be very impressed. Generic CPs are fine, I've read a ton of them, but the more you can at least explain your CP in the context of the affirmative's advantages the more likely you are to solve for their impact scenarios.

DA: Make sure to give a quick overview of the story during the neg block to clarify the intricacies of your position. If, instead of vaguely tagline making a turns case arg like "climate turns econ, resource shortages", you either read and later extend a piece of evidence or spend 10 to 15 seconds analytically creating a story of how climate change exasperates resource shortages and causes mass migrations which strain nation's financial systems, then I will lend far more risk to the disadvantage turning the case. Obviously the same goes for Aff turns the DA. I will also weigh smart analytical arguments on the disad if the negative fails to contest it properly. I'm also very persuaded when teams contest the warrants of their opponents evidence or point out flaws within their opponents evidence, whether it's a hidden contradiction or an unqualified author.

T: I've rarely gone for topicality but I have become increasingly cognizant of incidents in which I likely should have. My gut reaction is that competing interpretations can be a race to the bottom, but I have personally seen many affirmatives which stray far enough from the topic to warrant a debate centered over the resolution in that instance.

K: I used to run Ks pretty frequently in high school but I run them far less frequently now. I'm likely not deep in your literature base so be sure to explain your position and your link story clearly.

FW: My gut feeling is that debate is a game and that it should be fair, but I have seen many rounds where the affirmative team has done an excellent job of comparing the pedagogy of both models and won that their model is key for X type of education or accessibility there of. However, I am persuaded that a TVA only needs to provide reasonable inroads to the affirmatives research without necessarily having to actually solve for all of the affirmative. I do find the response that negs would only read DAs and ignore/"outweigh" the case to be effective - try to add some nuance to this question of why negs would or wouldn't still need to grapple with the case.

Non-traditional Aff: I've always run affs with USFG plan texts, but that doesn't mean that these positions are non-starters. I will be much more receptive to your affirmative if it is intricately tied to the topic area, even if it does refuse to engage the resolution itself for whichever reasons you provide.

Theory: I generally think 2 condo is good, more than that and things start to get a bit iffy.

Most importantly, please be kind to your opponents and have a good time.

Hey, I did PF for four years back in high school. I'm now a sophomore at Georgia Tech studying Computer Science you can ask about that if you want. I am perfectly fine with speed. Don't give off-time road maps, they just aren't helpful in my opinion. I will call for evidence if certain cards are heavily debated in round. I try to disclose if I can do it in a timely manner, but if the round is super messy I might not disclose. If you have any questions, please ask. Be respectful and have fun.

I'm a 4th-year varsity debater at Sequoyah High School

*Please show up to your round on time*

How I will evaluate the debate/general thoughts:

• You can go as fast as you want, but please don't spread. And one tip I will give: don't sacrifice clarity for speed (I can't flow what I can't understand)

• Please extend all of your arguments

• Weigh arguments and use ballot directing language - you can do this with an overview in the last speech that tells me how you win or with voters; I don't care.

• Both carded evidence and logic rebuttals are good.

• If you can, please number your responses to arguments so I know if I missed anything

Crossfire:

• You can be aggressive; please don't be rude (Rudeness = lower speaks)

• Overall I will not flow cross, so if you make a good point that you believe should be on the flow, make sure to bring it up in your following speech.

Speaker points and RDF:

• As for speaker points, as long as you speak clearly and know your evidence, you should be fine; adding any puns or references from marvel or star wars will boost your speaker points. Or you can follow me at Mg_haggerty on Instagram and send me your favorite meme!

• I will try to disclose and give you a detailed RDF

If you have any questions at all, you can ask me in round or email me at magghagg927@gmail.com

Have a good time and good luck debating

I am a 4rd-year debater at Midtown High School and I have only judged and competed in Public Forum.

my email is jthuray@gmail.com if you have any questions after the round.....

I don't have any set rules but I do have some preferences:

1) Do not bring up any new arguments from summary onwards (new evidence, responses do not apply)

2) Although I do not flow crossfire I appreciate having lively discussions take place during it

Please be respectful to your opponents. I'm looking for clear and concise arguments. It is ok to speak faster but be clear.

Likes
- Make sure I can see the relevance in what you're saying and the topic of the debate
- Clear contentions

Dislikes
- Counterpoint-based cases, you should have your own case that I can vote on, not entirely based on your opponent's case
- Spreading, this is discouraged because I prefer if I can understand you and be able to get a feel of what you are arguing.
- I have no tolerance for any arguments that discriminate against certain groups
- Taking extra prep time

I was a 4-year debater at Carrollton High School and I have only judged and competed in Public Forum.

my email is javierlm030503@gmail.com if you have any questions after the round.

Expectations

1) tech > truth

2) Do not bring up any new arguments from the second summary onwards

3) No racist or sexist remarks

4) I am not your person for theory at all

If you have any questions let me know

TLDR: Weigh, warrant, and extend. Collapse in second rebuttal. Defense is not sticky. Tech > Truth as long as the argument is not offensive. Run something fun I am bored of these arctic debates please. I am good with progressive arguments

A few things about me (TLDR version):

Former debater at University of Georgia

Plans are good

Impact calculus is important. Tell me how to write my ballot.

Clarity > Speed

Cross-ex is binding

Have fun and don't be rude!

Long version:

Framework - I'm a good judge for framework. Debate is a game and framework is procedural question. I’m persuaded by negative appeals to limits and I think fairness is an impact in and of itself. I don’t think the topical version of the aff needs to “solve” in the same way the aff does. If there are DA's to the topical version of the aff, that seems to prove neg ground under the negative’s vision of debate. Tell me what your model of debate looks like, what negative positions does it justify, and what is the value of those positions.

Kritiks - I think it's really hard for the neg to win that the aff shouldn't get to weigh the plan provided the aff answers framework well. I've got a decent grasp on the literature surrounding critical security studies, critiques of capitalism, settler colonialism, and feminist critiques of IR. The aff should focus on attacking the alternative both at a substance and theoretical level. It's critical that the 2AR defines the solvency deficits to the alternative and weigh that against the case. Negative debaters should spend more time talking about the case in the context of the kritik. A good warranted link and turns the case debates are the best way for negative teams to get my ballot. Tell me how the links to the aff uniquely lead to the impacts.

Counterplans - They don't have to be topical. Whether you have a specific solvency advocate will determine if your counterplan is legitimate or not. There's nothing better than a well-researched mechanism counterplan and there's nothing worse than a hyper-generic process counterplan that you recycle for every negative debate on the topic. I generally think that 2 conditional options are good, but I can be persuaded by 3 condo is okay. PICs are probably good. Consult/Conditioning/delay counterplans, international fiat, and 50 state fiat are bad. Typically, if you win theory I reject the argument not the team unless told otherwise.

Disads- I love a good DA and case debate. I've gone for the politics DA a lot in my college career. Normally uniqueness controls the link, but I can persuaded otherwise. Impact calc and good turns cases analysis is the best!

Add me onto the e-mail chain, my email is miriam.mokhemar@gmail.com. If your computer crashes, stop the timer until you can get your doc back up.

Head coach at the Vancouver Debate Academy. PF, Worlds, Congress experience; taught all of 'em plus LD, BP, CNDF, and the speech formats.

So, I enter my rounds tabula rasa, meaning that I enter without prior knowledge or experience being weighed. Just because I heard something in a past round or I know something to be true, doesn't mean that I'll weigh it in this round. Now, if you tell me the sky is green, I'll know you're lying. I'm not gonna let y'all walk all over me. But I won't hold what you should've said or should've argued against you. You give me the material, and I decide which I buy more. That's who wins.

Also, don't be rude. You don't have to kill each other to win a debate round!

We Out Here.

I debated at Sequoyah High School for 4 years in PF! 

My email is: elyserobbins22@gmail.com

A couple speaking things: I'm fine if you talk fast, but I need to be able to understand you. Make sure you are signposting throughout your speech. I want to know exactly where you are on the flow- it also helps if you go line by line.

Speeches:

1. Make sure your arguments are all well warranted. Don't just extend author names because I may not have caught them. Read the card and explain to me what it means. I also like logical arguments. Explain why this card is correct or why your evidence makes more sense than your opponents. If you can convince me its true and your opponents don't refute it then it will flow to your side. Don't misrepresent evidence though- keep it truthful.

2. If it isn't in summary don't bring it up in final focus. To be honest I kind of view this as cheating especially if new information is brought up in second final focus. Final Focus should extend the arguments made in summary and be very explicit in the ways your team is winning.

3. I will usually vote on the easiest path to the ballot, so provide very clear argumentation. If something goes untouched by the other side and it is extended throughout the round and weighed then I will usually vote for that issue. I find it really convincing when a team collapses on their main argument, weighs, and fully extends every part of the argument.

4. DON'T BE TOO AGGRESSIVE! If you are rude to your opponents during crossfire or say something offensive there is a 10/10 chance I will drop you even if I thought you won the round. Just be respectful. Debate is supposed to be fun and educational.

5. WEIGH! Weighing is so important because it shows me why your argument matters- especially in comparison to your opponents. You can win your argument, but if you don't tell me why that matters then there is no reason to vote for it.

6. I will disclose unless I have no idea where to vote. I will also give feedback. If you have questions after I disclose about anything at all let me know.

If you have any other questions let me know!

Current Coach -- Marist School (2020-present)

Former PF Debater -- Marist School (2016-2020)

Current Student at the University of Georgia

Please add maristpublicforum@gmail.com to the email chain

Debate is first and foremost a safe, fun, and educational activity so we should do our best to keep it that way

TL;DR: I am a tech judge and I will vote off my flow. Please do whatever you do best and enjoy the round.

General important stuff:

1) Extend every part of the argument... uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. A claim without a warrant is not an argument. If you do not extend your argument then I can not vote on it. I really do listen and pay close attention to this so please do. I will vote with no shame against teams that probably would have won if they had just extended their argument fully.

2) I cannot stress enough that fewer well developed arguments will always be better than blips with no argument development or good warrants. I've noticed teams that collapse and more thoroughly explain their arguments tend to win my ballot more often than not against a team that goes for too much.

3) Please weigh your arguments. Explain why your argument is more important than the other teams.

4) My only real pet peeve is wasting time during or before a debate. Please be ready to start the debate on time and don't cause unnecessary delays during it. Preflowing should be done before the debate. When prep time ends you should be ready to start your speech right away. "Pulling up a doc" or something like that for 30 seconds is stealing prep and should be done before you end your prep time.

5) Second rebuttal must answer first rebuttal, defense is not sticky

Other specific stuff:

Argument types:

I don’t care what type of argument you read as long as it is well explained, has warrants, and is weighed (case, k’s, theory... whatever are all fine). You do what you're best at!

Speed:

You can go as fast or slow as you want. I will be good flowing any speed you decide to go. My only caveat if you go fast is to slow a bit down on taglines and still signpost well

Theory:

Any theory arguments need to be real violations that have real impacts. Frivolous theory is unpleasant to judge and will be almost impossible to win in front of me. I believe paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good. At this point in the activity reading cuts cards and disclosing has become a norm that most teams adhere to which I think makes my threshold for responses to the shell even higher than it has been in the past.

Any theory argument should be read in the speech directly after the violation. For example disclosure theory should be read in constructive, but if a team reads cut cards in case and then paraphrases rebuttal then you read paraphrasing in rebuttal/summary whichever is next.

Speaks:

If you flow on paper and give second half speeches off of that flow a small boost in speaks. I give speaks primarily based on quality of the debating in round. Making good strategic decisions, collapsing, and weighing are all things that can help your speaks. Being nice and not wasting time also help. I do not really care how "good" you sound if you are not making good arguments at the same time. To put this into perspective, when I debated I always felt that winning rounds was more important than sounding good, but with winning generally comes better speaks.

Hello Debaters! I have experience in the debate community judging since 2016! I debated PF at Grovetown High School from 2014-2016, and now teach English at Riverwood High School!

I mostly judge PF:

1. Please speak at a pace where I and the opposing team can understand you.
2. Do not assume that I know all the lingo of the resolved. (ex: random treaties, random signed government documents) Please explain when something has been abbreviated.
3. I do not need an off-time road map. If you need to jot one down on your paper for your organizational purposes, cool, but it has no use to me as I am writing down literally everything you are saying, and do not need the order your speech goes in, unless you are just telling me that you are just explaining that the speech has one purpose (ex Impacts).
4. Please. Look. At. Each. Other. During. Cross. Not. Me. It’s. Weird. You’re arguing and questioning each other. It’s not a speech, It's a time to question each other!!
5. Please take prep time when reading another opponent's evidence.
6. Please do not give me the impact of POVERTY. Debaters usually try to link some huge world problem in the resolve with the impact that poverty is the end all-be-all, and is the worst thing ever. Global poverty is a systemic issue that people cannot help as it is an effect of systemic racism, capitalism, etc. Poverty is the reality of many inside and outside of the debate community, and you never know what someone is carrying into a round with on their back. I have seen this impact so over used and incorrectly used in the past years it has been harmful to me as a judge. This is a complex issue that 14-18 year olds cannot solve, and is usually only given harmful, exacerbated solutions to, therefore I no longer want to hear about it.
7. I will generally base speaker points on rhetorical skill rather than argumentative technicals.
8. Constantly tell me why I should vote for you. In other words, weigh impacts and extend your arguments. Please don't just repeat your contentions for every segment.
9. Debate should be a fun, enjoyable and equitable experience for all parties involved. If I hear students making discriminatory comments towards other teams or arguments discriminating others I will report you to the tournament leader and your coach, and have you pulled from the tournament. You are representing your school, your community, and your family when you are at these events. This is bigger than you.
10. If I close my eyes or look to the side while you are speaking during your speech, I am trying to focus and listen. I have combined type-ADHD, and I am just trying to SUPER FOCUS on the WORDS YOU ARE SAYING!! PF has so much info, I don't wanna miss a second!! Please do not take offense!

11. I prefer not to be included on email chains. If I need to see a piece of evidence that is called into question, I will look at it for myself.

12. Please, use your manners and let each team finish speaking during the crossfire. Let each other finish the question and talking. It's rude to treat your opposing team like that. Use your southern manners Y'all.
13. Give me a second while I am entering a round for the first time to set up everything. I be carrying junk around in my bag.
14. Please extend arguments and impacts in your summary and Final Focus, I understand it can be tempting to summerize your contentions. The other team and I listened to the whole hour plus of debate too, tell me how your contentions still stand and WHY! Give me impacts of those contentions. WHY THEY MATTER!!

15. I disclose after every round because I hate typing. :)

If you have any questions, feel free to email me at storyariel@gmail.com

See you out there! Happy Debating!

I am the PF captain at Midtown/Grady High School this year and am not competing.

In general, I prefer "tech over truth". If you tell me something I would like evidence presented and explained, but it ultimately comes down to your opponent's capacity to respond. Please signpost to keep me clear on your arguments.

Debate can get heated, but try to remain civil. It will affect your speaker points. Speaks will generally be 25-30 unless you are blatantly prejudiced.

Please give trigger warnings for graphic subjects.

I don't flow CX, bring up what happened in your rebuttal/summary if you believe it's relevant.

To help me earn my vote, ensure I flow the way you want me to: Signpost, mirror summary/ff, and tell me how I should weigh. If impacts aren't quantified and a weighing mechanism isn't given, I have to go off of my best assumption, which you don't want.

The most important thing to me in a round is that I want to see a genuine clash.

I won't vote off of nontopical arguments (abusive theory, Ks, CPs, etc.)

s/o Anthony Ovadje for the paradigm template :)

I did PF for four years at Marist School.

General Stuff

Weigh and warrant arguments.

Tech > Truth

Add me to the email chain: vance.sydneym@gmail.com

Evidence

If you don't cut cards, strike me. I won't drop you if you paraphrase, but you must have cards available if called for and it will hurt your speaker points. I usually won't call for cards myself, but if your evidence is terribly misconstrued, I won't evaluate it and will tank your speaks.

2nd Half

2nd rebuttal must frontline defense and turns

Summary and FF must extend all parts of an argument if you want me to vote off of it

Speed

I'm fine with speed, but clarity is always more important

Theory/Kritiks

I have basically no experience with K lit, but I'm open to hearing K/soft left arguments. A lot more warranting and explanation needs to be done if you are running this argument in front of me.

I'll usually vote for paraphrasing and disclosure theory unless it's handled atrociously. If your opponents do something terrible in round, I'll also evaluate some sort of shell explaining why its unfair.

Other

Have fun! Debate is really competitive and intense at times, but you will make rounds better for you, your opponents, and judges if you actually seem to be enjoying yourself.

If you have any questions you can ask me in round or just email me.

Thanks Anthony Ovadje for this paradigm.

I'm a second year out who debated at Marist. I've done four years of public forum.

General Stuff

Weigh and warrant arguments.

Tech > Truth

Add me to the email chain: laurynwalker21@gmail.com

Evidence

Teams should read cut cards. I won't drop you if you paraphrase, but it'll hurt your speaker points, and will vote on theory. I won't call for cards unless a team tells me to do so, or if a round comes down to strict evidence. Please be efficient with card exchange, it should not take longer than 3 minutes.

2nd Half

2nd rebuttal should at least frontline turns

Summary and FF should mirror each other

Speed

I'm okay with speed not the best, but if you go fast make sure you are clear. If you are unclear I might miss something.

Theory/Ks

I have very little experience with K lit(mostly cap and race), so I'm open to hearing K/soft left arguments, but just know I may not be the best judge for Ks.

I'll vote on paraphrasing and disclosure theory and other theory if something egregious occurs in round. I won't vote off something dumb like 'shoe theory.'

Other

Please do not read arguments like death good or nuke war good in front of me. I think these arguments are stupid and show a blatant disregard for people dying.

Other than that have fun! Debate is really competitive and intense at times, but you will make rounds better for you, your opponents, and judges if you actually seem to be enjoying yourself.

If you have any questions you can ask me in round or just email me.

I have been doing PF for a number of years and I am a varsity debater. Some important things you should know are...

Don't be afraid to call for your opponent's card during a cross-fire if their argument seems extreme. I do not require you to use your prep time to read your opponent's card. An argument is only as good as its source, so be ready to share these if asked to.

I don't flow cross-fire. If you think something happened in a cross-fire that improves your argument then reiterate that in your speeches.

I will be timing but make sure to be aware of your own time. I will not flow anything said after your time is up.

Finally, be respectful of the other team and avoid interrupting each other. I will not tolerate any racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.

he/him/his

Hey, I'm Mark! I'm first year out of Carrollton (GA), where I debated PF on the local and national circuits. I qualified to the TOC and NSDA Nationals a few times, all in PF. I'm a first-year at the University of Georgia now studying political science, international affairs, and Spanish.

Please start an email chain before the round. Please put me in it: mvzjr2@gmail.com.

Debate how you want to. This is your activity. It is my job to judge all forms of debate equitably. That said, I have found that I have certain unconscious preferences in the debate space. You can take these with a grain of salt, or you can try to adapt. That is completely up to you. I will never drop someone solely because they don't debate how I did or how I prefer. I never really know how to structure my preferences, so below are my best attempts. Let me know if you have any questions either through email or in person before the round.

_________________________________________

-100% tech>truth. I believe that debate is a game. I will vote on absolutely anything if it is extended well. Go for whatever you want to, but this means that every part of the argument has to be extended--including the link chain, warranting, specific evidence, and impact.

-Because you have to extend all parts of the argument, collapsing is often helpful. Collapse as early as you want.

-Go as fast as you want, but don't sacrifice clarity. I debated really quickly and can handle speed, but I think spreading is kind of annoying. That doesn't mean you can't do it, but if you do, it needs to be REALLY well done. If you get close to spreading, send me a speech doc.

-I don't flow cross.

-Time yourselves, please.

-I have a pretty solid threshold for theory and have some competitive experience with it. If you run theory, ensure that it is not abusive. I don’t think that a formal counterinterp is necessary to respond to a shell, just give responses like you would a normal argument. If it's frivolous and the opposing team indicts that, I will drop you and play Tetris on my laptop.

-Paraphrasing is probably fine (definitely not preferred), but if you misconstrue evidence, I will hardcore drop your speaks. I might also drop you. When an opponent asks for evidence, I will give you about 1 minute to send it in the email chain (as a cut card) and then start docking speaks (this can be altered at my discretion due to technology issues, etc.).

-PLEASE SIGNPOST. I also prefer line-by-line in rebuttal and summary, but this isn't necessarily a "must-do to pick up my ballot" type of thing.

-Weighing is really important. Do the weighing for me as early as possible. This said, weighing should not just be "we outweigh on magnitude/probability/scope/whatever other debate jargon you throw at me". Give me analyses as to why you're winning the round, which should be adequate. If the weighing is left to me, it might not be considered in the way that you want it to be.

-Frontline in 2nd rebuttal or first summary. Nothing new should be read second summary and beyond.

-Be respectful in a round or I will tank your speaker points and drop you. Debate is a really important educational opportunity and I believe that learning is the sole reason that this activity exists. Disrespectful and discriminatory behavior kills this, so I believe the punishment is warranted.

_________________________________________

I start speaker points at a 28 and then go up and down from there. I am usually pretty generous with speaks. You shouldn't get below a 26 unless you did something discriminatory or extremely disrespectful.

Feel free to (civilly) postround me, but make sure everything is submitted on my end. I think that post rounding is educational for both the judge and the debater, and ensures that judges are checked for bad decisions.

If you are funny I will boost your speaks. Please be funny.

I disclose unless the tournament tells me not to.

If you have any questions, please contact me. You can email me, send me a message on Instagram (@markzimmer_), talk to me, or send me a carrier pigeon. Anything works.