Current debater for Mountain Brook. I've done PF for 5 years

Add me to the email chain: allencaroline75@gmail.com

Tech>Truth

For email chains: danbagwell@gmail.com

I was a Policy debater at Samford / GTA at Wake Forest, now an assistant coach at Mountain Brook. I’ve increasingly moved into judging PF and LD, which I enjoy the most when they don’t imitate Policy.

I’m open to most arguments in each event - feel free to read your theory, critiques, counterplans, etc., as long as they’re clearly developed and impacted. Debate is up to the debaters; I'm not here to impose my preferences on the round.

All events

• Speed is fine as long as you’re clear. Pay attention to nonverbals; you’ll know if I can’t understand you.

• Bad arguments still need answers, but dropped args are not auto-winners – you still need to extend warrants and explain why they matter.

• If prep time isn’t running, all activity by all debaters should stop.

• Debate should be fun - be nice to each other. Don’t be rude or talk over your partner.

Public Forum

• I’m pretty strongly opposed to paraphrasing evidence - I’d prefer that debaters directly read their cards, which should be readily available for opponents to see. That said, I won’t just go rogue and vote on it - it’s still up to debaters to give convincing reasons why that’s either a voting issue or a reason to reject the paraphrased evidence. Like everything else, it’s up for debate.

• Please exchange your speech docs, either through an email chain or flash drive. Efficiency matters, and I’d rather not sit through endless prep timeouts for viewing cards.

• Extend warrants, not just taglines. It’s better to collapse down to 1-2 well-developed arguments than to breeze through 10 blippy ones.

• Anything in the Final Focus should be in the Summary – stay focused on your key args.

• Too few teams debate about evidence/qualifications – that’s a good way to boost speaks and set your sources apart.

Lincoln-Douglas

• I think LD is too often a rush to imitate Policy, which results in some messy debates. Don’t change your style because of my background – if you’re not comfortable (or well-practiced) spreading 5 off-case args, then that’s not advisable.

• If your value criterion takes 2+ minutes to read, please link the substance of your case back to it. This seems to be the most under-developed part of most LD rounds.

• Theory is fine when clearly explained and consistently extended, but I’m not a fan of debaters throwing out a ton of quick voters in search of a cheap shot. Things like RVIs are tough enough to win in the first place, so you should be prepared to commit sufficient time if you want theory to be an option.

Policy

[Quick note: I've been out of practice in judging Policy for a bit, so don't take for granted my knowledge of topic jargon or ability to catch every arg at top-speed - I've definitely become a curmudgeon about clarity.]

Counterplans/theory:

• I generally think limited condo (2 positions) is okay, but I've become a bit wary on multiple contradictory positions.

• Theory means reject the arg most of the time (besides condo).

• I often find “Perm- do the CP” persuasive against consult, process, or certainty-based CPs. I don’t love CPs that result in the entire aff, but I’ll vote on them if I have to.

• Neg- tell me how I should evaluate the CP and disad. Think judge kick is true? Say it. It’s probably much better for you if I’m not left to decide this on my own.

Kritiks:

• K affs that are at least somewhat linked to the resolutional controversy will fare the best in front of me. That doesn't mean that you always need a plan text, but it does mean that I most enjoy affirmatives that defend something in the direction of the topic.

• For Ks in general: the more specific, the better - nuanced link debates will go much farther than 100 different ways to say "state bad".

• Framework args on the aff are usually just reasons to let the aff weigh their impacts.

Topicality:

• Caselists, plz.

• No preference toward reasonability or competing interps - just go in depth instead of repeating phrases like "race to the bottom" and moving on.

natalielbennie@gmail.com--yes e-mail chain, but know I do not follow along with docs during the debate and do not tend to read a ton of evidence afterwards.

Debated at Samford University.

Currently coaching as a graduate student at Wake Forest.

Top level stuff:

• Do what you do best. Please do not try and change your debating to try and win my ballot-- chances are it won't help you out and you'll have less fun. I will listen to any argument and have experience running the gamut of them.
• My default position is as a policymaker and that debate is a game (a very challenging one, often with legitimate real-world applications, but a game nonetheless). That said--if you want me to evaluate the round in any other way, be clear about what my role as a judge is and present a justification for that interpretation, and I will be happy to do so

Specifics:

Framework:

• I am often very compelled by a topical version of the aff.
• Fairness is probably not an impact by itself, *update* but I find myself voting on it more often than I expect to.

Non-traditional affs:

• Go for it
• I don't think non-traditional aff necessarily need to be "topical," but I do think that the resolution ought to play a central role in your decision to run this affirmative.

Disad/Counterplans:

• Go for it
• Specificity is always preferable to generics and will probably be rewarded
• I am willing to no-link a disad
• I am often very compelled by a good overview that includes a thorough turns case analysis.
• Condo is fine and probably good. 3 CP's and a K are probably not. Cheater counterplans are probably cheating-- don't be afraid to take on this debate as the affirmative. I will vote on theory, but if there are other args you're winning, you should go for them instead.

Kritiks:

• Go for it
• Specificity is preferable to generics and will probably be rewarded
• While I may be familiar with your literature base, I will still hold you to a high threshold for explanation. I've seen a lot of k debates devolve into a battle of buzzwords with warranted analysis getting lost in the midst of it (to be fair, this is also true of a lot of policy debates). I will probably reward your ability to explain your own argument.

Tips for speaks:

• Time efficiency— Have the 1ac ready to send before the start time/the 1nc to send asap. Stands should be set up before the round. Inefficient rounds = lower speaks and less decision time, which may either help or hurt you (if that’s a gamble you’re interested in making).
• Assertiveness is not a license for disrespect or hostility.
• say smart things! Be nice!
• Make bold choices— trust your instincts.

Other stuff:

• Be kind. Be conscious of the person you're speaking to and how your tone/language choices/body language could be coming off.
• You are an intelligent and competent human being. Don't be afraid to use your brain and make some common-sense answers to arguments. I think a lot of what we say in debate is silly and could be taken down by a few good attacks, even without cards. Trust yourself to make smart arguments.
• Do not clip cards.
• Have fun! I love this activity and will put in as much effort judging your round as you did preparing for it.

Speed is fine. I'm your standard second year out flow debate judge. Have fun and Roll Tide. Please though, for the love of god, do not run theory shells.

General Info: I am a student at Auburn University studying theatre management. I have competed in PF debate and Congress throughout my high school debate career. Trad>Prog. I flow; however, if you are a clear win on the flow and do not convince me during your speeches, I will not vote for you.

PF: My background is in PF. Novices, I have more grace with; however, please try to stay on the flow. Varsity, you know how Debate works. Space your time well and be persuasive. I will be sad if your cross is dull, but it does not affect if you win or not, aka I do not flow it (because we do not do that).

Speaks: Speed is fine if you are clear; however, if I make faces at you of confusion or your opponents feel like you are spreading, do not be rude. Slow down. Again, I have a background in theatre, so the flow of speech (vocal variety and enunciation) and persuasiveness are vital to me. Speaks will be ranked based on that.

Do not make any drastic comparisons to genocide, slavery, rape, etc., in your case or weighing. Automatic loss, I will stop flowing and will not vote for you. The same goes for homophobic, sexist, racist, etc., comments. I will not vote for you if I hear it, even if you out-debated. There is no room for bigotry in Debate.

Good Luck!

INCLUDE ME ON EMAIL CHAIN

abbybowling58@gmail.com

*if you have any questions about your debate/my decision, please feel free to email me!

Ramsay graduate c/o 2020

SpeakFirst alumnus 2020

I mostly competed in circuit tournaments and had fairly even records.

When judging I vote on the quality of evidence and consistency throughout the round. If I can't understand what you're saying then I won't be able to vote for you and it also defeats the purpose of a progressive and engaged public forum round. If your opponent makes a claim against your case, it is your responsibility to address it, otherwise, I will flow the point to their side. I expect you to defend any arguments you want me to vote for and extend them throughout every speech. Anything brought up during crossfire will not be flowed unless said in a speech.

If you have any questions my contact information is below.

Email: carsonf314@gmail.com

Hey, I'm a varsity PF debater from Vestavia Hills.

It does not matter whether what somebody says is actually true in reality, I will only judge based on the flow. If somebody somehow provides a link chain saying how killing a monkey will lead to a civil war in Canada and the link chain isn't attacked, I will flow that and give them the win provided it outweighs.

Please signpost. The cleaner the round, the more speaks I will give you. If I can barely follow your speech, not only will you get lower speaks, it will also be harder for me to flow.

Be respectful. Anything homophobic or racist or just plain rude will make me give you lowest speaks possible and I will vote you down.

Weighing is extremely important. If you don't weigh, I will weigh myself, and there's no guarantee that I will go with what you had in mind.

If you don't give me anything to weigh on, this is the order in which I will weigh.

Pre-requisite >= Probability > Magnitude >= Severity > Scope

Meta-weighing is also important if both sides give different weighing mechanisms.

I will not flow cross. If you want anything in cross to count, it has to be round-changing and/or you must mention it in a speech. It will, however, affect speaks.

Steve Jobs died of Ligma.

I prefer clarity to speed.  Every. Time. Spreading will lose points with me.

I prefer a well-reasoned argument to number of cards.  While evidence is of course a part of any argument, I particularly reward the team that can apply specific evidence to their argument clearly.

I prefer a team that listens to and responds to the other side's argument appropriately.  

I do not pay much attention to crossfire; IMO, crossfire is your opportunity to see what you can do with your opponent's case.  I want to hear you bring up blocks, refutation and/or counterpoints based on your crossfire in the subsequent parts of the round.

As a coach, I will usually be pretty familiar with both sides of the resolution.  If a card sounds suspect, I will call for it.  

SOOOOOOO TRAD.

Hello, allow me to introduce myself. My name is Jadon Couch I attended Northridge High School in Tuscaloosa AL and now I am an undergrad at UAB majoring in political science. I have been involved with speech and debate for 3 years now qualifying in both NSDA and NCFL national tournaments. While my forte is mostly Extemporaneous, Congress, OO, informative, and mostly speech events. I am very well attributed to the debate sector as well; I have competed at a number of events involving debate as well. Now when it comes to being a judge, I look at it as if I am a Supreme Court justice, you are trying to convince me of your argument and from the very beginning I am unbiased and undecided of that opinion that will be heard. It is important to me though of these following things: being respectful, NO SPREADING, understanding your opponent's argument and finally have organized sound arguments. These are really the only requirements that I have for debate.

I did debate in high school, but I have been out of it for a while now so please excuse me if I am not totally up to date on everything. I am open to pretty much any argument and speed as well (but I prefer a conversational speed in Public Forum). I also request that competitors time their own speeches and prep time, and I'm ok if you go a little over time to finish your sentence but anything more than 5 seconds and I stop flowing.

Can't stress this enough: IMPACT WEIGHING, IMPACT WEIGHING, and IMPACT WEIGHING. Start in the summary continue with it in the Final Focus. If you don't present me with impacts to vote on it's a tough path for you to win my ballot. Impact calc is a HUGE plus so please include it in your speeches, especially if you have time left on the clock.

While framework isn't something that is a must for PF, I do love to see it. Framework is something that can give you that little edge and come in clutch in the end, especially if you know how to use it. However, please don't spend a ton of time arguing about framework and then barely mention it at the end of the round.

Keep cross civil and treat your opponents with respect. Other than that try to speak as clearly as possible and please give an offtime road map before you begin speaking.

Hello all!

I am a previous IE competitor of 4 years. I competed in and understand all Interp events (DI, HI, DUO, POI) and have experience judging Exempt, OO, and Info.

I do not have much experience in judging any of the debate events (LD, PF, Congress). If I am judging your debate round, please read the following:

Do not spread or speak too quickly. I cannot flow your speeches if I cannot understand you. If I cannot understand you, I cannot judge you.

Please be understanding with any questions I might ask before the round starts - I will seek clarification if I do not understand.

RESPECT YOUR OPPONENTS - if you speak over/interrupt your opponents during crossfire, I will dock points. Sportsmanship is a critical part of competing, so be respectful when others are speaking.

Hi I am Camp. I graduated at Montgomery Academy. I have done LD, PF, and WSD but mainly LD for 3 years. I prefer tech over truth. More than less, I was a trad debater, but do whatever you want as long as it is 1) topical 2) well explained. I can handle speed but do not spread unless you drop the doc to me and your opponent. I will vote a lot off of the framework debate. In your last speech please collapse on the arguments I should be voting off of. I prefer using speechdrop.net but my email is cmj0068@auburn.edu

Notes:

I prefer topic debate. I am not a fan of theory or meta based debate (time/prep skew or burden-based arguments). Disclosure is the debater's choice, and it is your choice to post your stuff on the wiki. That being said I have run theory and understand it at least a little. If there is something clearly concerning that has happened in round, go ham with a theory arg.

Crossfire and rebuttals can get heated, but it is an instant loss if you are derogatory toward your opponent’s character or identity that doesn’t impact cases.

Keep your own time

I don’t flow cross, bring up anything important in the next speech

I probably won’t disclose unless I have to

I love extinction but in truth it is not an end all - be all argument. I will not vote up a 1% extinction scenario with very few warrants vs a very well fleshed out structure violence case despite what you say about the “greater good”. Rounds are won on evidence and clash

Email: caitlynajones1@gmail.com

Pronouns: (she/her)

I have done no topic research. Assume I know nothing

I debated PF for 4 years

• If you want me to vote on it, it needs to be in the summary and the final focus

• Please don’t just yell cards at me. Some analysis please

• If there’s an evidence misconduct problem, I’d rather you point out the issues with your opponent’s interpretation of evidence during your speeches, but I’ll call for a card if you tell me to.

• Any concessions in cross need to be in a speech for me to flow it

• Don't Spread at me. If I need a case doc to follow you, it's too fast.

• I'm not flowing anything after the 10-second grace period

I am a lay judge and have been judging speech and debate for about 6 years. I believe that debate should include a clear presentation of your arguments and evidence. I also believe your speeches should be well organized. In the end, I will value argument over style, but the way you present your arguments is important to my understanding of those arguments. If you call for evidence, please have a legitimate reason for it. I don't like spending a lot of prep time on it. I expect you to time yourselves, but I will be timing too. I like clear, organized flows with clear voters at the end. I weigh heavily on impacts so compare your impacts and convince me that yours are stronger. Please be civil and respectful to your partner and competitors.

My background is in theatre and speech. I love judging speech events and will typically vote for the presenter who has the strongest emotional connection to their piece and the audience. There must be an effective balance of design, style, and presentation. The pieces that showcase who you are as a performer as well as communicating something new and fresh are welcome.

I debated in Public Forum debate (2013-2017) at Western Highschool in Florida.

I have a Bachelor's degree in Political Science from the University of Florida and a Master's degree in Liberal Studies from Georgetown University. Attending Northeastern University Law School in the fall.

a couple of things:

-Y'all should be timing the debate. I am the judge, not a babysitter. I like when teams hold each other accountable.

- don't read a new contention in rebuttal. that's not going on my flow

- The first summary should extend defense if the second rebuttal frontlines the argument. I think it is strategic for the second rebuttal to respond to turns and overviews.

- My attention to crossfire will probably depend on the time of day and my current mood. Please use it strategically if not I'll probably switch to watching youtube videos. - do not just read evidence explain the evidence in your own words. Tell me why the evidence matters to me at the end of the day.

- the summary is cool and all but don't go for everything on the flow, condense the round and give me a narrative. Quality of voters> Quantity of voters.

- Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh.

-any other questions ask me before the round

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

"30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior."

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

if you want to learn more about debate and get better under my guidance.

Click on the link below and sign up now!!!!

https://vancouverdebate.ca/intrinsic-debate-institute-summer-camp-2022/

I am the debate sponsor at JCIB in Birmingham, AL. I do not have personal experience as a debater and have learned what I know about debate from my students. My main request is that you do not speak at such a quick speed that it is impossible to understand what you are saying. If I can't understand you or follow your speeches, I can't vote on it! I will keep track of time on tabroom but I also encourage you to keep time yourself.

Hi! I have been debating at Vestavia Hills High School for four years now.

Evidence - If the evidence is sketch... I will call for it

Rebuttal - Signpost!!! Tell me exactly what you are doing/responding to

Summary/Final Focus - Weigh!! Signpost PLEASE! Say where you are on the flow

Crossfire - I don't flow crossfire, but if you want to tell me something that happened in crossfire, then say it in the next speech. Be respectful! Do not interrupt others when they are speaking. Yelling and screaming at each other will NOT help you win the round

Keep your own time (prep, speeches)

Have fun! :)

Hey!

Second Year debater, current senior in high school.

I've been in LD for two years, but now I've shifted mostly to Congress.

I have no PF experience, but I understand the things that are core to debate, so don't feel that you need to dumb things down a ton for me in PF.

I love for you to weigh impacts. If you want to win, make sure you do the weighing for me, or discredit your opponents weighing.

I'm fine with things like snarkiness, sass, or sarcasm, but make sure its in a joking manner. If its straight up rude, and not provoked, you will probably be voted down.

If you run tricks you lose! :)

tech>truth: debate is a game

the best way to my ballot is to weigh. weighing is inherently comparative, warrant your weighing and compare impacts/links to each other

run whatever you want; but the more progressive your debate becomes, the more you will have to explain it to me

any speed is good, just be clear

don't give me a soliloquy for your off-time roadmap

for the love of god, give me warrants

please signpost; if I look lost, I probably am

i don’t pay attention to cross; if something important happens, then bring it up in your following speech

do not extend the entire flow

frontline responses

defense is sticky

i vote neg on presumption

if you want it in the final focus, it needs to be in the summary

if we are on a virtual platform, please don’t spread. some speed is okay, but i really value clarity when online

add me to the email chain: crhoades2002@gmail.com

EMAIL CHAIN: jsydnor@altamontschool.org -- all rounds should set up email chains before scheduled start time. I would like to be included.

--------

Former policy debater in HS and College. I come into LD from that background, and I love seeing where LD and policy are in communication with one another. While I'm familiar with K's, CP's, PICs, plan-focus debates, planless K Affs, T, Theory... I'm less familiar with some of the other arguments like high phil, a prioris, NIBs, etc. that are more well known in LD.

I am am open to most arguments, but I am unwilling to vote on arguments I don't understand enough to give a coherent RFD. The burden remains with the debater to make a sufficiently clear argument I can grasp and understand as a path to the ballot. I don't feel bad saying "I didn't understand this, so I didn't vote on it."

I don't buy into the argument division between "circuit" and "local" debate and that I should inherently discount arguments or styles because it's Alabama not a "national" tournament. Any kind of exclusion needs to be theoretically justified.

Speed: 7.5/10. Speed is fine but debate is still a communication-based activity and I'm a poorly aging millennial. Sending speech docs is not a substitute for clarity.

--------

-CP: I default sufficiency framing and will judge kick unless told otherwise. Would rather hear args about solvency deficit, perm, and issues with NB than rely on theory to answer.

-K: I think all forms of debate are great, but K's and K Affs offer something unique to the activity that enhances its pedagogical value. However, that doesn't mean I know your specific literature or that I am going to immediately buy what you're selling. I like close readings of the 1AC to generate links as quality critical work.

-K Affs: Go for it. I believe the Aff has to advance some contestable methodology beyond "res is bad, reject the res." I usually believe offense on method is the most interesting site for clash. T-USFG/FW isn't off the table as a true guaranteed generic response and can be a really strong option given the way some K teams write their 1AC.

-Theory: Not my favorite debate but I know it can be important/strategic. Go a little slower on this if you want me to get follow the intricacies of the line-by-line. I have some hesitation with the direction disclosure and wiki theory arguments are going, but I still vote on it.

-T vs Plan Affs --I believe plans have the burden to be topical, and topicality is determined by interpreting words in the resolution. If you read a plan that is not whole res then you should always go into the round proving you definitionally are topical. I generally believe analytic counter-interps (like mainstream theory debates on norms) and reasonability alone are not winning options. Has the Neg read a definition that excludes your plan? If yes, you have a burden to counter-define in a way that is inclusive of your Aff. I am very persuaded that, absent a sufficient "we meet," if the Aff cannot counter-define a word in the resolution that is inclusive of the plan then I should A] not consider the plan reasonable, even if reasonability is good, and B] no sufficient competing interpretation of the topic, which is an auto-win for the Neg. (K Affs can be an exception to most of this because the offense to T and method of establishing limits is different.)

- T vs K Affs -- Willing to vote on it insofar as you win that you've presented a superior model for debate and that voting for you isn't violent/complicit. I generally believe fairness is not an impact. I like strong answers to meta-level questions, such as Aff descriptions of what debate and proceduralism vs debate as a game/site for unique type of education and iterative testing of advocacies.

-Phil: You should assume I know 0 of the things necessary for you to win this debate and that you have to do additional groundwork/translation to make this a viable option. I've only seen a few phil debates and my common issue as a judge is that I need a clear articulation of what the offensive reason for the ballot is or clear link to presumption and thus direction and meaning of presumption.

--------

If you choose to not set up an email chain or a reasonable alternative and then waste a bunch of time during the round with, your speaker points will be capped at a 27.5. Debaters saying "I'm not spreading so we don't need to share" or, even worse, "I don't want your team to have my arguments" are huge pet peeves of mine. This activity is net better when you can look at your opponent's evidence, analyze it, and contest it. Calling for cards is not sufficient nor time conscious. Just send the doc with the evidence you're going to read in that speech before the speech.

For most of my judging/coaching tenure, I have not included a paradigm, and that is because I do not believe my personal opinions are particularly relevant to the way you argue your case or present your program. You do you. But kids seem to want paradigms, so here it is:

1) Be logical. Impacts that don't link up are illogical. I probably won't believe it. Not every action leads to nuclear war, kids. Thankfully.

2) Speak clearly. If you love to spread, ok. But if I can't understand you, I can't evaluate you. It's like you didn't say it.

3) Be professional. Aggressive tactics are fine; rudeness is not.

Experience:I did not compete in Debate in high school or college, but I have been assisting with a debate program and judging for the past four years. I usually judge Public Forum, but I have also judged speech events and Big Question Debate. I am currently in my ninth year of teaching social studies. I teach United States History and International Baccalaureate History of the Americas.

Preferences: I can follow relatively fast speaking but please don't spread.

debated PF in high school local and nationally

if LD treat me like a lay judge

I primarily did Public Forum debate in high school, but I also competed in Congress, Policy, and Lincoln–Douglas. I competed on the local, state, and national levels.

Paradigms

1. I'm willing to evaluate just about any argument. I don't want you just spouting nonsense words at me, but if you want to talk about how troops in Okinawa are necessary to combat kaijus or how T.H.A.A.D. is needed to shoot Santa Claus out of the sky, I'm game. If your opponent's/opponents' argument is nonsense or unsourced, point that out, and tell me why that's bad. It's your job, not mine, to do the work to take down opposing arguments. Kritiks, counterplans, disadvantages, theory shells, and topicality arguments are all fine with me, just do the work to explain yourself and your arguments. The more absurd the argument, the more fun we all have.

2. Speed is fine, but if you're going to spread, I think it's courteous to email your case to your opponent(s) and the judge(s).

3. Be kind and courteous. I won't vote you down for raising your voice in CX/Crossfire (unless you get truly hateful, offensive, etc.), but your speaker points will tank. I understand things can get heated, but this is supposed to be a place of rational thinking and discourse. It's not a shouting match.

4. If you're able to be comedic while remaining polite, you'll be getting good speaks. If you make me laugh, you're probably getting a 30.

5. I appreciate signposting as you go and providing a roadmap before a speech. It helps keep things clear and organized.

6. I like voters. Even if you've got weird arguments and argumentative tactics, I would appreciate you shortening them down into brief arguments that highlight the importance and how you're winning on that argument.

Get Real