LD is Value Debate. Propositions of Value

CX is Policy Debate. Propositions of Policy

I debated CX (Policy) in Texas for a very competitive high school back when there were still square wheels. I was 1A/1N. I also competed in Foreign Extemp and Oration. NFL Degree of Superior Distinction.

I flow, but not like I used to. I can handle some spread, but again… not like I used to. If it's important; speak clearly and enunciate. If I don’t catch it, I don’t flow it, and therefore I don’t fully get your argument.

I am mostly Tabula Rasa. I like creative arguments with lots of clash. I am open to T, but it better be good. I love counterplans, again with clash. Most of all, I like good solid cards. Don’t go nuke… It was annoying then; its annoying now. I don’t mind some snark, but I'm not a fan of rudeness.

I haven’t done much LD and no PF. But the same kind of rules would apply there. Good evidence, good logic and well framed arguments will carry the round.

My email is sean.cryer@gmail.com for the email chain.

Best of luck.

I'm a volunteer and this is the first time that I am judging an event. I've read over some information about this topic and watched a demo video, but I'm new to judging

debated at jenks high school for 4 years, judge for jenks high school now. she/her

tl;dr : slow down on taglines/analytics, tabula rasa, put me on the email chain: caroline.kizziar00@gmail.com

speed: if you don’t send me something and i don’t catch it that really sucks for you.

Counterplan: i don’t think they’re abusive in general, that being said if the aff team correctly points out an instance of abuse on a counterplan and really impacts it out i could be persuaded otherwise. you should have either a specific solvency advocate or a really good reason why your generic one works. sufficiency framing should be well explained but ill def vote on it. i will not judge kick your counterplan unless you convince me i should. please for the love of god read a card with your counterplan— just the text is not enough.

disads: core generics are important but as a former 2A i know that most of them suck— tell me why and i will 100% listen to that analysis. i think evidence comparison is especially important on a DA.

kritiks: i was mostly a policy debater so im not as familiar here— you need to explain your lit for me to vote. im willing to listen to state bad arguments, but will be sympathetic if an aff team correctly asserts that the alt is vague/doesn’t do anything. rejection alts are bad. the more abusive your framework is the less likely i am to weigh it. I generally believe util but i can be convinced that i should weigh something else if you can convince me that their internal link chain specifically is faulty/bad— not just internal link chains in general. for k affs: don’t pref me. i think fairness is absolutely an impact to fw. i am not the judge for you. if you read debate bad/death good/baudrillard i do not want to hear it. I won’t lie i did go for a lot of cap good/heg good arguments in high school but pls just read what you’re good at not what you think i want to hear. i am very sympathetic to the perm double bind argument.

topicality: i do like t but please don’t run a bad t argument just because you think i want to hear it. you should have in round abuse and a pretty fleshed out explanation of your world vs. their world. I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. as the year goes on i weigh t less and less. that being said, if something isn’t even tangentially related to the resolution, you are going to lose.

case: i think case debate is underutilized, you should have something more than impact d even if it is just an analytic. same thing as k’s, please be explaining your aff i need to know what is going on don’t assume i know your advantages like you do.

crossx: definitely binding, definitely checks vagueness, should be brought up in later speeches.

theory: like any other judge i really don’t want to see a theory 2nr strat but if you believe that you have clear examples of abuse and that they genuinely deserve to lose for it, go ahead. condo is good, perfcon is fine, multiple perms are good, etc.

performance: whatever. im not too jazzed about this kind of debate but if you impact out why you need to play music in the round, go ahead. If your narrative has to do with sexual violence please dont be graphic, there are minors in the room.

misc: flash isn’t prep until it gets excessive, open cx is good as long as both sides agree, i don’t think debate should be funny. if you’re here and you run “joke” off case positions i will vote you down for wasting my time. you are not nearly as funny as you think you are.

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

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

This is my first time as volunteer judge. I look forward to doing my best for you and will be taking notes if you notice me looking down and off-screen.

I'm a parent judge...you know what to do...

I am a parent and my kid is writing this paradigm. If you have a male judge it's the dad and he's more republican but argue well and you'll be fine. Mom/ lady judge is more liberal and she will also vote whatever. Don't remotely spread or talk heavily about debate lingo unless you explain it lol.

I prefer speechdrop but here is my email for document sharing/evidence chains if you need it:betty.stanton@jenksps.org

I'm the head coach of a successful team, and have been coaching for 18 years. I did CX in high school so long ago that Ks were new, and I competed in college.

LD: I'm a very traditional judge. I like values and criteria and analysis and clash. I want framework debate to actually mean something.

PF: I’m a very traditional judge. If the round becomes a very short CX round instead of a PF round, we have a problem. I want evidence and actual analysis of that evidence, and I want actual clash.

CX: I can handle your spread and I will vote where I'm persuasively told to with the following exceptions: 1) I have never voted on T. I think it's a non-starter unless a case is so blatantly non-topical that you can't even see the resolution from it. That's not to say it isn't a perfectly legitimate argument, it's just to say that I will probably buy the aff's 'we meet's and you might have better uses for your time than camping here. 2) If you run a K, you should firmly and continuously advocate for that K. 3) I, again, will always prefer actual clash in the round over unlinked theory arguments.

General Things ~

Don't claim something is abusive unless it is.

Don't claim an argument was dropped unless it was.

Don't advocate for atrocities.

Don't be a jerk to your opponents (This will get you the lowest speaker points possible. Yes, even if you win.)

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.

I did PF for three years, becoming a state champion my senior year. I'm currently a sophomore at Princeton.

Just some general rules

Don't be mean. There's a difference between being aggressive in cross-fire and being mean, don't be mean.

Don't lie or misconstrue your evidence. I'll probably read evidence if you ask me to, and if I feel like you're stretching something then I'll probably call for the card at the end of the round.

About cross-fire: I generally don't flow cross-fire, but if something spicy is mentioned I'll jot it down. If you're witty you'll get some speaker points, but there's a big difference between being witty and being mean. Mean bad, Witty good.

Truth over Tech any day of the week, especially in PF. Something that will really help in clarifying how you win in that regard is by weighing your arguments in the context of magnitude, probability, and time-frame. I loooove impact calculus, really gets me up in the morning. That being said, don't just tell me that your argument is more probable, rather tell me why it is more probable.

I think PF is at its best whenever it is focused. Don't bring up some argument that has been ignored the whole round back up again in final focus. If it really is an important point then bring it up continuously in your speeches.

There's a lot of value in telling me why your evidence is better than your opponents, especially whenever they say opposite things. Also if you have a DOPE piece of evidence tell me why its a goldmine.

Overall I think debate is a fun time where we should learn a lot from. If I walk out of a round and don't learn anything, then there's a problem. If you can provide some unique analysis that provides an impact that makes me really care about the topic, then you've done a fantastic job.