Background: Hello, my name is Lorelei Bailey (she/her/hers) and I am a past student judge. I competed in LD for 6 years and have judged debate tournaments ranging from middle school, novice, and varsity. I am currently an NPDA college debater at Tulane University. Debate is something I have enjoyed for the more significant part of my life, below I have some things I like to remind competitors about before rounds. Please do not hesitate to clarify any questions about my paradigm before the round begins.

Competition preferences (LD):

Please put me in the email chain- email: lorelei.e.bailey@gmail.com

I competed as a traditional LD debater but I know progressive/tech well. Please off-time roadmap/signpost because I flow during every round I judge. Please keep time, I do time during the round but also prefer competitors to do the same, and use your prep time.

Basic stuff:

• Don't drop args.
• Weigh.
• Consider organization.
• Use prep time effectively, same for the cross.
• If you're going to spread, make sure you actually can- don't attempt to if you can't do it "correctly"
• Unpopular opinion: tech and truth are equal and it is better to have a bad response to an argument than no response.
• AFF has the burden of proof.
• I'm more familiar with trad but am fine with progressive

Speaks: No clear formula, but here are my main consistencies

• I am fine with spreading as long as it is done well if you're able to speak clearly
• I like cross-examination and it does affect speaks during rounds I judge.
• A general rule of thumb: don't be rude
• Organization = higher speaks
• Time unused = lower speaks
• Fluency, clarity, etc = higher speaks

Cross-examination:

• I was told that CX is where the round is won which I think is generally true. CX takes organization skills, strategy, and direction. The intent of your questions is more obvious than you think...asking clarification questions (i.e "what is your V/VC") tells me that you are unprepared and did not listen to your opponent, you should be able to ask better questions than that.

K's:

• EXPLAIN your argument. If it is not relevant, I will not flow which could negatively affect you.

Tricks:

• Unpopular opinion, but tricks can be very useful, but only if the debater does it right.
• Substantive tricks: hijacks, determinism, and moral skepticism are the types I'm most familiar with.
• Theory tricks: not preferred at all, they're usually messy and just bad.
• Responding to Tricks: 1) Underplay, 2) line-by-line response, 3) generate turns

Disadvantages:

• Perfect DAs need to consist of 1) Uniqueness, 2) Impact, 3) Link, 4) Internal link
• How I like to respond to DAs/how to respond to a DA:
• Answer the link/ turn the link- When you make a “no link” argument, you are contending that the first step in the disadvantage will not result from supporting your plan.
• Answer the internal link/turn the internal link. When answering the internal link, you are essentially arguing that “A” will not produce “B.”
• Answer the impact/turning the impact. An impact answer says that the impact is false. An impact turn says that not only is the final impact not bad, but it is also good.
• Strats: 1) Use your affirmative to non-unique the disadvantage. 2) Use your affirmative to solve the impact. Think of a way that voting for the affirmative can prevent the impact. 3) Maintain an apriori claim

CP's:

• Make sure your CP applies and is realistic to the topic. I think only topical CPs should be allowed in a round, but that is just my opinion.
• Responses: P.O.S.T
• P- Permutations (PERMS): These are the most common, I do not have a preference
• Severance permutations—Severance permutations attempt to do part of the plan and all or part of the counterplan and thus "sever" out of part of the plan. When done as a counterplan, it is often called a plan-inclusive counterplan or PIC.
• Intrinsicness permutations—Intrinsicness permutations attempt to do all of the plans, all or part of the counterplan, and something in neither the plan nor the counterplan. Their rationale is that the counterplan is not intrinsically competitive with the plan because the added actions make it possible to achieve the benefits of both the plan and the counterplan.

Competition preferences for Congressional Debate (CD):

If you need time signals, I will provide them but clarify how you would like them done. Eye contact is vital so I know when you are ready to begin speaking, this helps tremendously with timing.

• Don't make up your sources
• Don't rely on reading straight from your laptop, impromptu responses make Congress the event that it is, if you know the subject matter that is up for discussion then this shouldn't be an issue.
• POs: move the debate along, that's the essence of your role. Remain impartial to your school

Competition preferences (IE)

If you ask for time signals, I am more than willing to provide time signals. Project your voice and speak clearly. I evaluate characterization, speaking pace, and theme

For all competitors:

Have fun and enjoy competing !!! <3

Hi! I'm an incoming college sophomore currently competing in BP/ APDA, and championed WSDC with Team USA in 2023. WSD preferences/ thoughts below, but feel free to run whatever you want (within reason) as long as you're persuasive, and have fun!

On principles: I won't automatically weigh the principle before the practical. You need to explain to me why you should. I also won't automatically discount a "principle”because it's hung. I'll just evaluate it as a practical argument, so explain 1) why it’s contingent on the practical debate and 2) why it’s not beating your practical impacts.

On third substantives:You don't need one if you don't want one. Just make sure you're flagging extension material in the 2 if you choose not to run a 3rd argument.

Thirds, replies, and new material: I won't evaluate entirely new mechanisms. I won't evaluate entirely new impacts. New analysis of mechanisms and impacts that were brought up in the 1 or 2 is fine in the 3rd speech. New refutation is fine in the 3rd speech. I'm not going to evaluate new analysis and ref in the reply -- you should be using this speech to highlight your winning arguments and explain how you've already beaten their winning arguments.

Intervening: If your mechanism is egregiously wrong and the average reasonable voter (who does not have specialized knowledge about anything) I won't factor it into the round, even if your opponents don't respond at all. Otherwise I'll evaluate it, but keep in mind that the less substantiated your claim is, the less of a response it requires.

POIs: will dock speaks if you don't take at least one, assuming they're offered (please offer them)

LD: Briefly - pref trad debates but can evaluate whatever. Enjoy K v K debates as well. Prefs: Trad, Phil - 1, Policy, K - 2, Theory, T - 3, Tricks, Friv Theory - 4/5.

LD - In highschool, I was an LD debater. I will listen to most arguments as long as they make sense. When it comes to Value debate, I believe it is just how you frame the round, and even if you win the value debate, you may not win the round. Ensure you link arguments to the Value/Criterion to ensure you win on those arguments. The value is just how we view the round, not a win condition within the round. Other than linking into V/Crit and Framework, make sure you signpost your arguments and clash with your opponent. I am OK with speed, just make sure you slow down on taglines.

Policy - Although I was not a Policy kid in High School, I have a decent understanding of a policy round. I will vote on most arguments as long as they make sense. I am OK with Kritiks, as long as you explain them well and they are structured properly. If you run topicality, make sure you tell me how the opposing team is in violation. Again, make sure you clash and signpost arguments. I am ok with speed, just make sure you slow down on taglines.

Extemp - I like a well organized speech that has a clear structure. Ensure you provide sources to back up your analysis of the topic. Presentation and Analysis are both really important in this event.

Interp - I want to see a variety of emotions in interp. I also want it to be clear where the climax of the piece is, and ensure it is being built up properly. I also want to see unique and individual characters within the pieces. I also think visualization is important to a piece, I want you to see what is happening in your piece, so it is not just words on a paper. If it is believable that you truly see what is happening, then the judge will follow you.

Congress - I want connection with the chamber in congress. Ensure that you are not just reading off a paper, but actively engaging with the arguments of the round. I think it is best if you refer to previous members' speeches to either further extend your own or to directly clash with something they brought up. I think presentation style is also important in this event.

LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD!!

I will vote for the better debater

speed is fine if its understandable

In progressive debate I tend to frame heavily around plan/cp/solvency

Theory>framework if reasonable

Absent framework debate i will default tangibility of impacts

Ask further questions if you want!

Flower Mound '25

flomospeechdocs@gmail.com

Qualified to the TOC. Primarily do LD but have dabbled in CX as a 2A.

[Tournament]---[Round]---[Team] (Aff) vs [Team] (Neg)

I think the 1AR can explain the case on the line-by-line.

I believe the burden of proof takes precedence over the burden of rejoinder. Arguments like "no 2NR I-meets" are irrelevant if there is no clear violation.

I am not interested in judging debates centered on accessibility concerns (ex. spreading consent).

I am willing to allow brief pauses for genuine technical issues, such as computer crashes, but this should not be exploited for a competitive advantage.

I will not penalize speaker points for reading any position against a novice or traditional debater. However, I discourage attempts to secure cheap-shot wins against opponents you could easily defeat on substantive arguments.

I will not vote down a 2AR that does not extend the case in a debate that comes down to topicality.

I default that presumption negates unless the 2NR extends an advocacy that defends a larger change from the status quo than the affirmative. This means that if the 2NR extends a PIC, presumption still negates because the change is smaller than the affirmative. I also default permissibility negates, judge kick, competing interps, no RVIs, reject the argument, and comparative worlds.

I am not voting on ad hominems under any circumstances.

CX and flex prep are binding. Flow check questions must be answered in CX or flex prep. Open CX is fine.

Inserts, inserting perm texts, and rehighlights are fine.

i love to judge debates i am tabula rasa and completely unbiased whatsoever