I'm a lay judge, but by day I'm a professional educator and parent of a debater. I love to give my time to this activity because I firmly believe it's good for young people, but I don't have the technical knowledge of someone who either debated in school or coaches debaters. If you feel like you've been "judge screwed," it's probably because you're operating at a level that relies on tricks that those "in the know" use and can judge. I'm not them, but you need to know that people like me make this activity possible for you. In round, please avoid jargon like "dis-ad," "the burden of the neg," and the like. If you can do this debate thing well, you'll present a coherent, rational argument, and demonstrate your understanding by making it comprehensible to an old fool like me, not hiding behind complex language tricks. You won't get my vote based on the quantity of contentions you enumerate, but their quality and coherence. Don't do shady stuff with sources. Stay decent with one another. Don't spread. You'll win my ballot with actual excellence in argumentation, not sophistry. That said, it's my privilege to get to spend time with curious, motivated and capable people like you.

I am a college debater for the University of Mississippi in the British Parliamentary style of debate. In high school, I qualified to the NSDA nationals in congressional debate and policy debate. 

Congress: 

I like to be entertained. I rank speakers higher when they engage in the round with lots of questions. 

Policy:

Speed is fine as long as I can understand you. I would prefer to be on the evidence email chain. I don’t like topicality debates on novice case areas. I will flow.

My judging paradigm is very simple. I believe the purpose of debate is to teach competitors to think critically and communicate effectively. Evidence is only important if a competitor can tell me why it's important. It is imperative for the competitor to demonstrate a true understanding of the arguments they are making. To that end, I think spreading should be avoided when possible, but I am fine with some speed.

I like to see clear clash and persuasive argumentation. Assertiveness is good, rudeness is completely uncalled for and may cost a competitor the round if it is pervasive enough. Further, competitors should be respectful and deferential to judges regardless of the judge's experience.

Debaters should come prepared for technology catastrophes. Bring paper copies, USB storage devices, and contingency plans. I flow when I judge, so I only take things into consideration that are said in the actual debate. If you are spreading to the point that your words are unintelligible, I will put my pen down. If that happens, you will not be getting credit for anything you say until you can be understood enough for me to resume flowing.

I am the Director of Forensics and an Assistant Professor of Speech Communication in the Department of Writing & Rhetoric at the University of Mississippi. I have a PhD and MA in Communication Studies from the University of Kansas.

I currently coach British Parliamentary debate but my background is in policy debate.

From 2014 to 2021 I was an assistant coach at the University of Kansas.

I competed at Wayne State University from 2009 to 2014.

I debated in high school for Dexter High School in Michigan.

Put me on the email chain, please. jacob.justice.debate at gmail.

Regardless of format (policy, PF, LD, BP, etc.) or style (policy, critique, etc.) I want to see complete and supported arguments, engagement with the arguments of your opponent, and judge instruction about how to prioritize and weigh various arguments.

The following stuff still applies.

*October 2020 Update*

This past Spring I finished up my PhD at the University of Kansas. I am now a public speaking instructor at Northeastern University in Boston, MA. I will be judging sporadically for Kansas during the 2020-2021 season.

What does this mean?

Don't assume I have high familiarity with the nitty-gritty of the current topic. I coached/judged on the high school military presence topic (2010-2011) and coached/judged extensively on the college military presence topic (2015-2016), so I am familiar with the broad strokes of the current college topic, but the latest and spiciest arguments and acronyms might be unfamiliar to me.

The Wayne State tournament will also be my first time judging an online tournament; although I did judge many online debates at the 2020 Jayhawk Debate Institute and have taught online many times as well. I just wanted to provide a fair warning that you can't rule out a "boomer technology moment" with me in the back of the room as I learn the ropes of this strange new world of online debating.

With these updates out of the way, I think everything below applies.

I always do my best to judge the debate in front of me without letting my own biases creep in. But I (or any other judge) would be lying if I told you I don't have certain preferences: these preferences are spelled out pretty well below.

One additional comment: I find that the most difficult rounds to resolve often involve debates that are occurring on two different registers. A 1AC with massive extinction impacts versus K links about knowledge production or ontology. Or a 1AC about anti-blackness or psychic violence versus a T argument about fairness/education. When debaters' impacts operate on such different levels, it can be difficult to resolve the debate without debaters explicitly telling me what types of impacts to prioritize.

*Previous Philosophy*

First things first:

1) Do what you're best at. As a judge, I should adapt to you and not the other way around.

2) Arguments should have a claim, warrant, and implication. Any argument that contains a claim, data (this doesn't mean carded), warrant and implication is fair game for my ballot.

3) A dropped argument is almost always a true argument. The most common exception is if the original argument did not include the requirements in #2, in which case I might give the team that dropped the arg some leeway in hedging against an entirely new warrant or implication. Tech creates "truth". What is "truth" is contingent on arguments made (and won). I often find myself voting for arguments that I disagree with or find silly when one side executes better.

4) This is a communication activity, so clarity is important to me. I like being able to hear the text of evidence as it is being read. Enunciate! Don't talk into your laptop or read like a robot.

General Notes:

Context always matters. Controlling the contextual framing almost always requires hard pre-round work, and usually wins the round. I value teams that demonstrate robust knowledge of their arguments and the topic.

Clash matters a lot to me. I'm not a good judge for teams whose strategy is built around avoiding a debate. This is true regardless of which side of the K/policy spectrum any given argument falls on.

Impact comparisons are critical, no matter what flavor of debate you engage in. Does negative flexibility outweigh 2AC strategy skew? Are the 1AC’s methodological assumptions a prior question to its pragmatic implications? Does a long term warming impact outweigh a quick nuclear war scenario? In a close round, the team that provides the clearest and most well-explained answer to questions like those usually wins my ballot.

In general, it is better to a develop a small number of arguments in an in-depth manner than to develop a large number of arguments in a shallow manner, although there are certainly exceptions to this rule. Selective rebuttals are typically the most effective. That being said, I recognize the strategic benefit of the 1AR pursuing a handful of lines of argument to give the 2AR flexibility to pick-and-choose.

After judging a year of college debates, I think my biggest pet peeve is vagueness -- be that a vague plan, vague CP, or vague alt. Being clear and detailed is helpful to me as a judge.

Framework:

See: my previous thoughts about clash.

Teams should defend an example of the resolution. I don't think being topical is an unreasonable expectation when the resolution does not force you to take a conservative or repugnant action (i.e., when legalizing pot or closing military bases is topical). I think fairness is an impact and will vote on it if articulated and debated well.

When answering T with a "K Aff," I think it is important for the AFF team to advance a limiting counter-interpretation of some kind. I am more likely to be persuaded by "we don't make the topic unworkably large" than "destroying debate good."

It is important for affirmatives to demonstrate that their advocacy is germane to the controversy of the resolution and contestable. Affirmatives should explain what type of ground they make available to the negative, and not just by referring to random author names. In other words, it's much more helpful when the affirmative frames the ground debate in terms of: "our affirmative relies on *X* assumption, which *Y* literature base writes evidence refuting" rather than just saying "you can read Baudrillard, Bataille, etc."

Teams should articulate a clear vision of what debate would look like under their interpretation. Ideally, teams should present a clear answer to questions like: "what is the purpose of debate?" Is it a game? A site for activism? Somewhere in between?

I don't think reading topicality is a means to evade clash with the substance of an affirmative -- in many instances it calls core assumptions of the affirmative into question.

Interacting with your opponents' argument is critical. It's important to isolate a clear impact to your argument and explain how it accesses/turns your opponents. Often times I find these debates to be irreconcilable because the arguments advanced by either side have disparate premises. It can be helpful to not conflate procedural justifications for topicality with normative ones, though the internal links to these things often become messy.

I am disinclined to view debate as a role-playing exercise.

Topicality:

I will definitely vote on it, and I have done so often. I am not a good judge for "should = past tense of shall", "reduce =/= eliminate" and other contrived interpretations negatives read against obviously topical affs. For instance, it will be difficult to convince me that an affirmative which removes the Cuban embargo is untopical, absent a massive technical error. That being said I am willing to vote on T, given that an interpretation, violation, standards, and voters are well articulated. Affirmatives should always make and extend a counter-interpretation.

Theory –

It will be tough to persuade me that two conditional advocacies is egregious and unmanageable for the 2AC. Beyond two conditional advocacies is pushing your luck if you are the negative team, especially with multiple "kickable" planks involved.

Basically every other theoretical objection is a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

I haven't formed a solid opinion on "judge kicking" CPs, but since the aff has the burden of proof in most theory debates, I think I am comfortable putting the burden on the aff to prove why the 2NR can't simultaneously go for a CP and the SQ.

-Consult/Condition/Delay CPs – I tend to consider these types of CPs uncompetitive, and am thus receptive to perm arguments. That being said, there is a big difference in my mind between “Consult Japan on the plan” and well-evidenced CP’s that are comparative between doing the plan unconditionally, and using the plan as leverage. The latter brand of condition CP’s are few and far between.

Critiques:

Given my disposition to view things within a cost-benefit paradigm, I am likely to frame the critique as a disad / counterplan. This basic calculus will be different based upon the framework arguments advanced by the negative regarding ontology, epistemology, method, etc.

When indicting an affirmative's knowledge production or epistemology is imperative that you reference quotes or phrases from the 1AC which you think are flawed. It is also imperative that affirmatives defend the truth value of their 1AC's claims from these types of epistemological attacks.

I feel most comfortable in K rounds that involve a lot of interaction with the plan, the advantages, or explicit 1AC claims. There should be a coherent link, impact, and alternative. Don't assume I know what you are talking about.

Affs are best answering the K at the alt and impact level as the neg will almost certainly win a link. Articulating why the alt doesn't solve the case and why the case outweighs the K impacts is usually the best strategy. I am also a fan of the impact turn.

K links should ideally establish that the 1AC/plan is undesirable, not merely that it doesn't account for every foreseeable harm. I.E. links that say: "the plan makes racism worse" are more persuasive than "the plan does not address other instances of racism."

Hello! My name is Anna (she/they). I was a high school debater for 4 years competing in primarily PF, Worlds, Poetry, and Informative Speaking. I have also experienced and have knowledge in Congressional Debate, Prose, and Duo Interpretation.

My goal as your judge is to make sure that you feel comfortable, are able to take away something important from the round, and have fun! As such, feel free to contact me about any questions you have through my email (annakang613@gmail.com).

Now, here is some important judging criteria for the following events:

Overall Comments for Debate:

- Please speak a bit slower. This allows me to write as much as you want me to judge. Refrain from spreading if you can, and I'll note in the round if you are speaking too fast for me to write. I want to at least get as much as I can to properly judge.

- If you go overtime in your speech, know that I won't flow from that point. Additionally, just know you are keeping yourself from ending the round earlier than you would be.

- (Just my own little pet peeve) I will want you all to refrain from saying, "my opponent made a mistake" or anything that sounds like you are directing comments to your opponents. I want you to focus on the arguments, not directing the mistakes to the opponent. This won't change any differences in points, but it might just be a little thorn on my side throughout the round.

PF:
This is a debate that needs evidence but most importantly elaboration and ability to translate that evidence to your argumentation. I don't want the debate to be based on spreading and ultimately getting confused on what the opponents are arguing. Make sure you are speaking clearly and clarifying your argumentation along the way to win the round. Here are some other things I want you to note:

- I need you to weigh. I am going to heavily emphasize on the fact that I want to see the summary speech be used to not only clear up some misunderstandings, but also be the key deciding factor of the weighing aspects of the round.

- Argumentation should be carried throughout the round. From rebuttal, to summary, and finally final focus. If I don't see that trend, then I can't carry your argument until the very end. Make sure to collapse when you need to, and plan accordingly so you don't get overwhelmed at the end. It makes it easier for me to judge as well.

- I will not be flowing cross. I will still listen in and see how you all act during that time, but I will only flow the content that was taken from that time if you bring it up in your other speeches.

- I will default to a cost/benefit analysis framework if none are given at the beginning of the round. Please make sure to provide argumentation as to why your framework should stand if you are going to provide one. If your opponents are able to adequately answer to it or negate the reason for why we need such a framework, then I won't consider it.

LD:

TBH, I sadly don't know much about this field. All I know is that you have to substantially provide evidence for your value and criterion with your contentions. Follow the comments above if I am your judge for LD, and I will do my best.

Congress:

If I ever judge this, just know that I want to see professionalism, funny remarks, and good speeches. I also really appreciate good questions, since this tells me you are paying attention.

Policy:

I don't know much about this debate form as much, but I will do my best to follow, so bear with me as I try my best. You guys have lots of time in comparison to other debate forms, but I understand the feel and need to fit more information during that time as well. Make the debate not as a speed-race for how many words you can get in, but I would like to see the arguments getting thrown back and forth and engaged with by both teams. Similar to my points in PF, I will judge most of the arguments based on those particular points made above.

Worlds:

If I ever judge this, I can provide more specific comments after round. Most importantly, I want to see teamwork and flowed argumentation throughout the 3 speeches. I love to see how future speeches will respond to the ones that happened earlier and provide answers to certain substantives. Clever remarks and team lines will also give extra points from me.

Overall Comments for Speech:

- Show how much you are passionate for your topic and event. This can differ from each event, but if I see that particular enthusiasm for the topic, you can definitely pull me in and keep me on my toes.

- Speak clearly

- I will provide hand signals and give you ones that I think are necessary for that particular event. If you have specific signals that you would like, feel free to ask me to do them! I have a phone timer for that reason :)

- If you have any more questions, feel free to ask before you begin!

In all debate events, I prefer quality over quantity. I don't care how much evidence you have; if I can't understand it and you don't bother to analyze it in a way I can understand it, it doesn't impact my flow.

I also get particularly annoyed when debaters ask for my paradigm and then completely ignore it. If you don't care what I think, don't make a pro forma gesture by asking.

In cross, allow your opponent to answer your questions. You may certainly politely thank them to keep them from going on and on, but butting in after 4 words is not okay. I take a dim view of rude debaters, and it definitely affects your points.

Debate is a persuasive and communicative activity. Use your voice and your logic to persuade -- not practice to be an auctioneer in the future.

Updated February 2023

Caveat: This is my perception of what I think I do. Those who have had me in the back of the room may have different views.

The TL;DR version (applies to all forms of debate).

1. The resolution is pretty important. Advocate for or against it and you get a lot of leeway on method. Ignore it at your peril.

2. Default policymaker/CBA unless the resolution screams otherwise or you give me a well-reasoned argument for another approach.

3. “Roles of the ballot” or frameworks that are not reasonably accessible (doesn't have to be 50-50, but reasonable) to both sides in the debate run the risk of being summarily thrown out.

4. Share me to the speech doc (maierd@gosaints.org) but I’m only flowing what you intelligibly say in the debate. If I didn’t flow it, you didn’t say it.

5. Fairness and reciprocity are a good starting point for evaluating theory/topicality, etc. Agnostic on tech v. truth debate. These are defaults and can be overcome.

6. Rudeness, rules-lawyering, clipping, falsifying evidence and other forms of chicanery all make me unhappy. Making me unhappy reduces your speaker points. If I’m unhappy enough, you might be catching an L.

The longer version (for all forms of debate)

The Resolution: Full disclosure – I have been a delegate to the NFHS Debate Topic Selection Meeting since 2011 (all years for Mississippi except 2022 when I voted on behalf of NCFL) and was on the Wording Committee from 2018-2020, the last of those years as chair. There’s a lot of work that goes into crafting resolutions and since you’re coming here by choice, it should be respected. Advocate for or against the resolution and I’ll give you a pretty wide degree of latitude on method. If you’re just going to ignore the resolution, the bar is pretty low for your opponent to clear to get the W (though I have seen teams bungle this).

File Sharing and Speed – Yes please, but understand I’m only flowing that which comes out of your mouth that I can understand – I don’t flow as fast in my mid-50s as I did even in my 40s. I only go to the speech doc if a) I lost concentration during the speech through no fault of your own, b) I need to read evidence because there is a dispute about what the evidence says, or c) I want to steal the evidence for a future round. If you bust out ten blips in fifteen seconds, half of them aren’t making the flow. Getting it on my flow is your job and I have no problem saying “you didn’t say that in a way that was flowable”.

Arguments: Arguments grounded in history, political science, and economics are the ones I understand the best – that can cut both ways. So while I understand K’s like Cap, CRT, and Intersectionality, I have a harder time with those that are based on some Continental European whose name ends with four vowels in a row who says that not adopting their method risks all value to life. Your job is to put me in a position to be able to make the other team understand why they lost, even if they disagree with the decision. If you don’t do the work, I’m not doing it for you. Regarding “framework” or “role of the ballot” arguments – if what you’re advocating isn’t at least reasonably accessible to both teams, I reserve the right to ignore it.

Deciding Rounds – I try to decide the round in the least interventionist way possible – I’ll leave it to others to hash out whether I succeed at that. I’m willing to work slightly harder to adjudicate the round than you do to advocate in the round (basically, if neither debater does the work and the round’s a mess, I’m going to look for the first thing I can embrace to get out of the round). If you ask me to read evidence, especially your evidence, you’ve given me a tacit invitation to intervene.

Point Scale – Because I judge on a few different circuits that each have different scales, saying X equals a 28.5 isn’t helpful. I use the scale I’m asked to use to the best of my ability.

Things that will cost you speaker points/the round:

1. Rudeness – Definitely will hurt your speaks. If it’s bad enough, I’ll look for a reason to vote you down or just decide I like to make rude people mad and give you the L just so I can see you get hacked off.

2. Gratuitous profanity – Saying “damn” or “hell” or “the plan will piss off X” in a frantic 1AR is no biggie. Six f-bombs in a forty second span is a different story.

3. Racist/sexist/homophobic language or behavior – If I’m sure about what I saw or heard and it’s bad enough, I’ll act on it unilaterally.

4. Falsifying evidence/clipping cards/deliberate misrepresentation of evidence – Again, if I’m sure about this and that it’s deliberate, I’ll act on my own.

5. Rules-lawyering – Debate has very few rules, so unless it’s written down somewhere, rules-lawyering is likely to only make me mad. An impacted theory objection might be a different story.

Lincoln-Douglas Observations

1. Way too much time on framework debates without applying the framework to the resolution question. I’m not doing this work for you.

2. The event is generally in an identity crisis, with some adhering to the Value Premise/Criterion model and others treating it like 1 on 1 policy, some with really shallow arguments. I’m fine with either, but starting the NC with five off and then collapsing to one in the NR is going to make me give 2AR a lot of leeway (maybe even new argument leeway) against extrapolations not specifically in the NC.

3. Too many NR’s and 2AR’s are focused on not losing and not on winning. Plant your flag somewhere, tell me why you’re winning those arguments and why they’re the key to the round.

Public Forum Specific Observations

1. Why we ever thought paraphrasing was a good idea is absolutely beyond me. In a debate that isn’t a mismatch, I’m generally going to prefer those who read actual evidence over those who say “my 100 page report says X” and then challenge the other team to prove them wrong in less than a handful of minutes of prep time. Make of that what you will.

2. I’ve never seen a Grand Crossfire that actually advanced a debate.

3. Another frustration I have with PF is that issues are rarely discussed to the depth needed to resolve them fully. This is more due to the structure of the round than debaters themselves. To that end, if you have some really wonky argument, it’s on you to develop your argument to where it’s a viable reason to vote. I will lose no sleep over saying to you “You lost because you didn’t do enough to make me understand your argument.”

4. Right now, PF doesn’t seem sure of what it wants to be – some of this is due to the variety of resolutions, but also what seems like the migration of ex-debaters and coaches into the judging pool at the expense of lay judges, which was supposed to be the idea behind PF to begin with.

5. As with LD, too many Final Focuses are focused on not losing instead of articulating a rationale for why a team is winning the debate.

I participated in speech and debate in High School and have been judging debate all year this school year.

I am generally a tabula rasa judge beginning with a blank slate and look to see which side presents the best overall arguments. I tend to put a greater burden of proof on the affirmative since the negative can usually argue to the status quo.

I did debate all four years of high school. I competed in PF and Congress, as well as interp and limited prep events. I was the 2019 State Champion in PF and Duet Acting, as well as national quarter finalist in congress at NSDA in 2019.

Speaking and debate are both important to me. Do not get caught up in the speaking style of your opponents, just address their arguments.

Do not spread, and for PF your arguments should be accessible. It’s called public forum for a reason, and should be accessible to laymen.

When addressing your opponents be respectful. I understand this activity can get heated, but it should still be cordial.

LD should address value criterion as well as the points presented by your opponent. Do not let the debate focus on solely one or the other.

speaker points are determined by clarity and overall contribution to the debate.

Your links between evidence and points should be very clear. I don’t care how much evidence you have if you don’t explain it’s importance.

most importantly have fun and be ready to learn. Despite this activity being about competition the goal should be for you guys to learn and be exposed to new ideas. Have fun and be respectful!

As a personal choice, I won't be disclosing a paradigm.

I respectfully request that you don't inquire about any of my preferences.

I did policy in hs and currently do British Parli in college, for policy debate I heavily focus and emphasize impact weighing in deciding my ballot. I want to hear not only why you won the round but why your case leads to a better world, outcome, or meets a value best (or rather, why the opponent's case does not).

I will listen to topicality arguments however they need to be fleshed out with good link work. If you do run topicality, please tell me the exact thing your opponent has done that is untopical. Don't read a generic topicality file without telling me what part of their case it applies to. In order to vote on topicality I also need to see why topicality should be weighed above anything else in the round.

I'm decent at keeping up with taglines but please explain what a card is instead of just referencing it. For example, if halfway through the round you say "our fox 2014 card trumps their cnn 2013 card" I might be slightly confused unless you say specifically what those 2 cards refer to.

Overall, I prioritize a clean, civil debate above everything. Please be respectful to each other during rounds and have fun.

Also i'm okay with some speed but please don't spread too fast for me to understand you.

I teach rhetorical analysis and argumentation; consequently, I carry that awareness with me in my judging. I do my best not to let prior knowledge impact my opinion of arguments.

In judging LD, I concentrate on the values and contentions; I am more excepting of far-reaching contentions as long as you can make the connections. Definitions aren't everything, but I like to know which ones you are using; subtle differences matter. My focus will be on the actual argument, the claims and rebuttals, and the crosses in the debate. I find "arguments" that rely on exhorting the rules of the process to be disingenuous.

In PF, I appreciate seeing a cohesiveness in the team. I focus on the structure of the argument, are adequate supports provided, and is everything rebutted. Again, I do my best not to let prior knowledge impact my decision. Unnecessary speaking over each other and attempting to drown each other out is uncivilized and irritating. It also works against following your argument.

In Policy, I am looking for a logical argument that should pass, and for the negation, I am comfortable with nearly all on-topic and off-topic measures. I do find continuous definition attacks to be pedantic. As for spread, not an issue. I have clear hearing and have taught English to non-native speakers, so enunciation is not really an issue.

I debated Public Forum for four years in HS and attempted to compete in Prose for a semester during my Senior year.

Overarching things:

Truth > Tech: All of us can pretty much agree, most of the arguments we read in PF are hypotheticals so I generally evaluate the round based on what's presented regardless of the truthfullness of the argument. Saying that, if you're gonna try to convince me that aliens exist or the Illuminati have my mind in a vat, you'd better have some pretty convincing evidence. Remember, the more realistic your argument, the more likely I am to value it more highly in the round.

Frameworks: I default to a cost/benefit analysis framework. If a team provides a framework for me to evaluate the round under it should be introduced as early as possible and extended throughout all speeches. If there are two frameworks please do the comparative for me and explain why I should pick one over the other.

Comparative Analysis: Please do the comparative for me with different arguments. If both teams are running similar arguments do the comparative and tell my why yours is better. If teams are running different arguments (ie one is an economic impact and one is a democracy impact) I need to know why I'm preferring your argument. Absent comparative analysis, I will have to interpret things on my own and you don't want that.

Extension: Extending only the authors and taglines of cards doesn't suffice for me. You need to extend the substance of the card as well and how they relate to your impact. If you want me evaluate something in FF is should be included in the summary speech. I usually allow first speaking teams to extend defense straight to final focus but in reality you should be mentioning important defense extensions in summary.

Crossfire: I will NOT flow cross. Cross is a way for debaters to clarify arguments with each other, so arguments or ideas presented in cross must be extended throughout the rest of the debate. Don't use cross as an extra speech, use it for setup for later speeches.

Other things:
- When time stops, flowing stops. Speaking over the time limit will not add anything to the flow or factor into my RFD
- Quality over Quantity; avoid spreading if possible
- If I can't understand you, I will stop flowing. It is your job as a debater to present yourself in a clear manner to me, so if you speak to quickly, to a point where I cannot understand you, you will lose speaks and my flow won't contain all the arguments you mention.
- Second rebuttal should respond to turns/disads.
- Please collapse on a few arguments in summary. I prefer quality over quantity and clear extensions.
- Weigh, weigh, weigh (as early as possible in the round)
- Implicate turns and defense
- Please don't miscut (I will drop you)
- Cross fire should be an exchange b/w the two debaters. I don't want long speeches in it.
- Star Wars references are greatly appreciated and will gain some clout with me.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before we start the round/email me at dfroger1@go.olemiss.edu

Good luck and make the most of every round!

Having practice law for more than 40 years I have heard thousands of arguments and watch how they were presented. So presentation, demeanor, and delivery do come into play. While consideration of the aff and neg are important, examples to support those contentions should be presented and analogized. Cross is very important to display the deficiencies in each parties arguments. Final argument should be concise and to the point. Rules must be followed. There can not be fairness in the process of rules are not final.

Jude Sims-Barber, as featured on https://www.change.org/p/keep-the-public-in-public-forum?source_location=search

Hello debaters! I’m a university student studying philosophy and sociology, and was a debater throughout high school for three years. My main proficiency was with Lincoln-Douglas debate and Congressional debate but I am very familiar with Public Forum, Policy, and IDPA debate (and, to a lesser extent, British Parliament and World Schools Debate).

I use any and all pronouns and my email is njudesims@gmail.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: I have minor hearing loss. My inner ear tissue is scarred and my speech perception is affected as a result. This is not an issue of volume, it is an issue of clarity and enunciation. As a result, I cannot understand spreading. It is simply out of my ear's reach. And before you ask, no, you don't magically have the perfectly understandable spreading cadence.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Notes (please read):

Debate is educational first and foremost. Yes, it is competitive (a "game"), but you should always debate in good faith and not use cheap arguments or tricks just to win. Try to understand your opponent and their arguments, and try to make the debate reach a point of conclusion rather than simply making cheap dunks or disingenuous attacks. Communication relies on mutual trust and a desire to learn, not a desire to dominate or win.

Truth over tech. Techy truth is generally fine. I will not disclose. I don't have time to argue with high schoolers about why they lost.

While I understand the desire to make as many arguments as possible, the default should be using an ordinary, pedestrian speed to communicate well-researched ideas. Do not be disingenuous, either in the arguments you choose to run (knowing that they're designed or cut in a manner to disorient your opponent) or the way you explain/extend them.

-Stay topical. You chose to come to this tournament, you paid the entry fee, you know the topic. It's different when academics decide to discuss the weaknesses of our discourse models or the symbolic violence inherent in... English syntax. You aren't an academic, you're a high schooler competing in a competitive tournament you voluntarily signed up for--debate what the resolution says.

Time limits exist as a statement of how long the statements you need to make should take. They are not an excuse to cram as much stuff into that time by spreading.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Lincoln-Douglas:

-Keep it traditional. The most engaging LD debates are those that speak in concrete terms about abstract ideas, using what we examine on a surface level (mere political issues) and revealing hidden moral assumptions or frameworks (theory).

-Is is not ought. Merely because something is the case in the real world says nothing about whether such a thing is morally justified. No, you don't have the solution to the is-ought gap.

-You must have a Value and Criterion. Lincoln Douglas is all about framing topics with an ethical framework. When we say that something is moral or immoral, we must do so with an ethical framework (i.e., consequentialism, deontology, etc.). A value of Morality is meaningless, as the purpose of LD is to normatively prescribe a special importance to a particular value or good (it tells me nothing as a judge if you value morality. You might as well say "it is good to do good things and bad to do bad things").

-Ethical theories are not values. You cannot 'value' utilitarianism--it is an ethical framework through which we quantify or evaluate that which we hold important. We can examine the utility of 'positive freedom' as a value, but we cannot simply value utilitarianism.

-Avoid criteria that are bulkily worded ("ensuring healthcare access" or something similar). Try to limit criteria to established philosophies, ideas, methods, or theories.

-I highly value philosophical consistency and a solid understanding of the philosophical ideas and ethical theories argued for. I know judge intervention is frowned upon, but if you misrepresent a philosophical position or idea, it will be hard for me to trust your proclaimed level of expertise on the topic. Simple mistakes are perfectly okay, as a lot of philosophy is rather impenetrable.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Public Forum:

-PF is not policy. You used to be prohibited from citing evidence in PF until after Ted Turner sponsored it. PF is the lay debate in high school circuits. Keep it simple. To clarify, I do expect you to use evidence, but also your own proficiency for debate.

-If you know a piece of evidence is deeply flawed or even wrong, why run it on the chance that your opponent won't know how to respond? Does that not seem disingenuous to you?

-I'm primarily a flow judge, and I care deeply about clear statements of arguments and rebuttals. If you don't signpost, I'll likely miss it. Tech mainly bores me, so do try to make quality arguments--if you make bad arguments, then I won't prefer them solely because the opposing team couldn't mention the sixth drop of the fourth subpoint in a three minute speech. If the argument is bad, then it's bad--simple as. (By bad, I mean poorly explained, incoherent, frivolous, or cheap.) Drops are only a point in your favor insofar as the dropped argument is actually substantial to the overall debate.

-Focus on broader impacts. Remember that the burden of the CON is not to propose any comprehensive plan of action, merely demonstrate why the PRO is ineffective or harmful.

-Do not spend too much time on one specific point with one specific point of evidence. Give weight to what's important. Collapse by the end. The earlier, the better.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Big Questions:

-Big questions is a descriptive debate, which means that you are debating on what is (descriptive) rather than what ought be the case (normative). What this means is that you are, on aff or neg, answering the big question at hand. What's more, big questions require big answers, and any reasonably big answer contains quite a lot of philosophy. Your case should include some measure of balance between raw theoretical material (philosophy, broadly) and hard science. Depending on the topic, you might lean more to one side (e.g., objective morality exists vs. humans are naturally self-interested).

-In my experience (for the few years BQ has been around), disputes over evidence in BQ shouldn't be boiled down to "well our sources disagree." Generally, a dispute around a big question is epistemological, about how we come to know things and how certain that knowledge really is. For example, saying that "humans are naturally protective of their young" is not really disagreeable on a factual basis, but whether that information is significant as to whether humans are self-interested is a matter of specific theoretical framing and definition.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Policy:

-Don't spread. If you go too fast, I'll say 'clear' until you slow down. This has resulted in me saying clear within the entire 8 minutes of a speech, so please do slow down.

-Please do not force me to rely on an email chain to decide the round.

-On T: I am pretty lenient when it comes to whether a plan/counterplan is topical or not. My standard for determining this is whether or not the plan fits in what I conceive as the "spirit of the resolution." Something may not be strictly topical as per the verbiage of the resolution, but is still topical as it fits the resolution's intended spirit as written. The only times I will flatly reject a plan on topicality is (1) if it is too large in scope, as to encompass the resolution rather than the other way around, or (2) it is so disconnected from the topic that it may as well be a non-sequitur. As an additional note, please don't waste time making a bunch of topicality arguments. It is often time-consuming.

-K's are most commonly a cheap trick, in my view--I know that they're used topic to topic and round to round with little change, as a means to minimize exhaustive prep and real engagement with the topic. The only exception I'll give is to specific instances of abolition/discourse K's, in which you argue (in good faith, I'll be able to tell) that the verbiage or framing of the resolution overly limits available/acceptable discourse. Regardless, don't anticipate a vote in a K's favor. You signed up for this tournament, after all, and your decision to sidestep the topic reflects at least partially on your intellectual honesty.

I am a math teacher and speech and debate coach at Purvis High School in Purvis, MS. Our primary focus as a team is on speech and interp events, so my experience with debate events is rudimentary.

I judge LD debate, where I would prefer that debaters not spread. I judge primarily on the flow with an emphasis on value and criterion, but I do give a higher weight to presentation than do many debate judges. I feel that debate should not just be an exercise in logic and evidence (though that is the focus), but should also reflect the reality that the way in which information is presented affects its persuasiveness.

I am a PF debater who also has participated in Congress, Extemp, Impromptu, and Declamation.

For Debate events:

- Make sure to speak clearly and deliberately. Please refute & extend points in your later speeches - it really helps us decide who to win. Also, try to signpost (say which point you are refuting before you refute it).

- Please maintain decorum. I will drop you if you are rude.

- If an untrue point is brought up in the round, it is the responsibility of the other team to refute it. If this is not done, I will assume it is true for judging purposes, although I will critique any untrue arguments in the ballot.

For Speech events:

- Speak clearly and confidently.

For all events:

- Just relax! I know that's easier said than done but it will make your experience better. Also, remember to be respectful, and most importantly, have fun!

If you have any questions about the round, please feel free to reach out to my email: g.hayden.walker@gmail.com

Courtesy, clarity, and connection. Please be polite, speak to make your points or performance clear to the audience (the judges), and (in debate) explicitly articulate the connection of your evidence to your point(s).

Speech & Debate is as much an educational activity as it is a competitive activity, so my comments will be focused on what seemed to work or not work within the context of what it appeared you were trying to accomplish.

I give only a brief paradigm here because I do NOT want you to attempt to tailor your presentation to a bunch of imagined traits and preferences I may or may not possess. Run YOUR case; give YOUR performance - I will judge and comment upon the presentation's face value to the best of my ability.