Email: chopindylan92@gmail.com

Please include me in the email chains.

I'm a college level JV debate team member with Liberty University I've had ten years' experience with 4-H speaking competition. So would like to think I know a little something about speech.

Notice: Punctuality, it very important, period. I get it, things happen. Tech issues and other problems happen at chance. But there is a limit to my grace. Be on time, start on time and everything will be perfect. Knowingly and willingly wasting time in debate is very likely going to make me cross. No one wants that. This is the biggest issue that plagues my nightmares. Make sure that your keeping track of your time, both in round and prep. It's vital that you keep record of both your and the other sides time. I, of course, will be doing my best to keep track. But, things happen, and I might, by accident, not start the timer. In that case, it would be up to you. And furthermore, if I'm the one to tell you to stop every time. Well, I'm going to become irritated rather quickly, and you most certainly don't want that. And oh, so importantly. USE all of your time. In-round you only a very limited amount time to make your case. And the amount of prep is very important, so that you use it wisely.

Notice: I'm pretty open to anything and everything. But one thing that I will not tolerate, is the wide use of foul language. While it's use won't decide the debate for or against your side. In general, I would be more likely to consider the side that isn't throwing around curse words left and right. At the very least without utility in round for the usage.

Notice: If you say death is good, I'm going to vote against you 99% all the time. The 1% shall not be named.

====================================================================

Policy:

Counter Plans: I was a 2N for most of my time in debate, so throw whatever CP you want at me. At the same time, I will just as hard judge you on the execution of said CP. I will fairly judge whatever kind of CP that you put out. But be warned, I will just as equally vote on theory, so know that going in. Condo: anything more than two CP's, in opinion, is kind of unfair. Process, Consult, and PIC counterplan were my bread and butter as a 2N, so be prepared to run them well; because I will low-key judge you if you just throw random CPs out there. I will be very ready to vote on perms and/or severance theory. Something I'm going to need is a story of why the CP is different than the plan. Impact cal please. Perms: Saying, "Perm: Do both" is not enough for me to buy a perm from the aff. I get it, it's the 2AC and you need to get your frontlines out as quickly as you can. But, if I'm going to vote on the perm, I need a sentence or two in the 2AC about how the perm functions in the context of both the Plan and the CP. And then at least twice the explanation as you go long for to get on board.

Disadvantages: Love a good disadvantage. Something that I both love and need is impact comparison. The link also needs to be contextualized to the Aff. It's not enough to say NFU links to the Deterrence DA, you have to tell me how especially a NFU policy will lead to lack of deterrence. I don't care about what your author says or not. Only what you, in round, can explain to me and sway me to the story of the Disadvantage. I hate the Politics DA, as a Political Science student I find Politics DA's a flaming hot pile of trash. Of course, I will vote for them, but it will literally take a part of my soul.... I have few pieces left. Just know that it will a hard uphill battle if you run a politics DA at me. The rest of the disadvantages are fine. If you say a one line analytically spoken No-Link, I'm going to need a deeper level of storytelling for me to buy it.

K's: To me, Ks are the far more interesting and the part of debate that isn't a boring extinction by nuke impact that has been said a million times in this game. I was extremely policy as a 2N, however, I did run Anthro and Security K's, So I'm not unfamiliar with the fine details surrounding K's. As such I'm not reading deeply into K lit, so I'm going to need a defined story of the K. Why and how the alt solves, and how the plan links. Again, I need deeper story of the link and how especially links to whatever aff you're reading against. Perms: My debate partner runs K's, so I'm very informed about perm theory with on the aff and neg. I going to need more then, "No Perm/ yes perm" from both sides if the debate comes down to the perms. Framework: I will fully vote for framework alone. You, however, best be prepare to fully explain how frameworks and what my role in the round is. As I have said before, I will vote on whatever as long as you have warrants behind your claims. AFF-K: I strongly dislike AFF-K's. I will on the other hand, just as easily vote for a Aff-K, but know you will take a part of soul with you.

Theory: Ah theory, my old friend that likes to both save me and then repeatedly stab me in the back like my name is Julius Caesar. I have a deep love hate relationship with theory. I will vote on any theory as long as I buy the reasons behind the violation. Condo: I will vote one condo, but if the neg is one running one CP, I'm probably going to be like, "Bruh". I agree with anything over three CP is cheating, so don't do it.... Severance: I will totally go all in on this violation, but I need more than just the "blocks" that your coach or senior debate member gave to you, and don't understand why or how it works. Explain it to me slowly and why it's actually severing out of something in their plan text. Topically: I love topically debates. One or two violations is enough, if you run anything more than that...well you better have a good reason as to why. Have your definitions prepared, because you say "VIOLATION" doesn't mean I believe it. Hint: if the neg reads 3 or more violations, I'm down to vote for a counter violation because of the time and strat screw their quite literally screwing you over with. Just make sure you're explaining why they're low-down cheaters and why I should vote for you, and we will be fine.

======================================================================

Types of Debate:

Policy vs Policy: This is the kind of debate that has made up 80% of debates I've been in and judged. I find these kinds quite boring most of the time, so you're going to need to spice it up. Now, what that looks like is up to you. But if both teams are to throw up extinction impacts, please for the love of everything good in this world, explain to me why it's different than every other extinction impact.

Policy Vs K: I find these kinds of debates to be the most interesting in the entire debate community. As a 2A I can reasonably said that going against K's give me a headache at the best of times. But I have the most fun at the same. I'm familiar with both policy and K lit, so I let there be a battle of titans! There be clash! And only one will remain!

AFF-K Vs K: Take it.... Take all of my soul. I have nothing left but a black bottomless pit, where I cower in the dark. Framework and solvency are two areas that are likely to get the ballet for one side or another in this kind of debates. On solvency, I need to know, clearly, how the Aff-K solves or doesn't solve in the round. The role of the ballet and role of the judge is important in deciding these kinds of debates. Please just tell me how to vote and why and we're be fine and dandy.

======================================================================

PF: As I'm a policy debater, public form is quite different than what I'm used being part of. That being said. as PF is slower, I have no trouble flowing and following along at any speed to dare to throw at me. So, go at the pace that you feel the most comfortable. Either slow and steady or fast as you can without sacrificing clarity. Time; use yours wisely. There is in PF, a very limited amount of time to go around. So, make sure you're not giving up on time. Because if you yield an amount that you could have used, and the other used all of their time. well, that side is more likely to win, simply based on amount spent on arguments and evidence.

At the end of the day/debate. Having fun and learning is the goal, so have fun!

I have been judging tournaments for the past 20 years in both L-D and PF. I am more of an old school judge. In L-D I like value clash, but I do place more emphasis on the contentions rather than the value clash. I generally do not like debates that center around the definitions...note the difference if it occurs and move on. Either I am buying one side or the other, but do not spend the round focusing on just the definitions. Not a fan of spreading or other aspects that have bled over into L-D and PF over the years. However, if the person can spread and do it well (I have judged only a few students capable of this over the years) then I can live with it.. I also have no problem with the negative running a balance case.

Email: shannon.castelo@gmail.com

I am a high school debate coach with a personal background primarily in a speech where I competed in oratory and other traditional speech categories (i.e. extemp, impromptu) I have been coaching debate almost exclusively over the past seven years with my greatest success with LD debaters but I do love PF debate.

Priorities for all types of debate

1. Delivery matters, clarity, and signposting are appreciated (I will judge spreading but will not flow what I can't understand, I will "clear" twice then stop flowing). If you are going fast- be prepared to share your speech doc.
2. I will vote by looking at both flow first then considering technical skills and delivery. I do not typically offer low-point wins but have done so. Road maps are preferred
3. Direct and fast question and answer in the crossfire. Be nice!!!
4. I am a tech judge who loves trad debate at reasonable speed. I will certainly discount ridiculous, unwarranted arguments in the round and really do hate a slippery slope but do not totally discount a sound link chain that gets me to extinction-level impacts. The flow means a lot to me. I am watching cross closely but of course, will not flow the cross or vote off of cross. It only matters if it is mentioned in the next speech.
5. Impacts must be clear as in tell me literally "The impact is.." and I want to see voters in the final speech
6. I want to see clean and ethical sourcing and card cutting. Make sure you are not misconstruing evidence in any way. I am known to call for cards before I vote so be prepared to provide an evidence doc if requested.
7. Clash- I expect clear CLASH. LISTEN to the arguments and attack them directly. INTERACT WITH THE CASE. Don't rely on just cherrypicking block cards. Debate is about truth finding. LISTEN and analyze. If you are not responding, you are not winning the round.
8. Specifically for PF- if you use policy jargon or tactics that is hard to sell to me. I just believe it is all toxifying the PF debate space. If you think you can improve the debate space then tell me how and why that should be the prior question in the round. If the logic is clear and delivered well I will consider it of course.
9. Specifically for LD- Value FW is essential. I look for the connection of each contention level arg back to value. VC is optional for me but I want to see a value argument. I always weigh FW in LD! Give me those philosphical explanations- WHY should I value life? WHY should I value security? Who says so! Show me that you have done the HW
10. I am a sucker for great rhetorical STYLE. Make me laugh or smile in the round to up those speaker points.
11. For Policy- Anything goes, have a blast. I am down for anything. Just keep it respectful, clear, and logical.
12. As I grow as a coach and judge I have grown to respect cases that demonstrate creative, out-of-the-box argumentation. I am bored by stock cases and arguments that are overused and underdeveloped.
13. Disclosure Theory in round- I personally think disclosing helps grow education and makes for interesting debates but I don't want to hear disclosure theory as your argument for why you win. Work with what is presented. I don't think I have ever given a win to somebody running disclosure as a voter but I guess it could happen.
14. Use evidence challenges CAREFULLY and SPARINGLY- at the end of the day, it is usually a waste of time for us all. The judges are savvy enough to know when we are hearing evidence that sounds sketchy. If you don't buy evidence you can ask for cards but let's not do this repeatedly throughout the round. It breaks up the flow of the debate and becomes more frustrating than anything else. Don't hang your win on calling out one bad card but definitely call out untruths if you hear them and can prove them.
15. Decision disclosure- I will disclose if allowed by the tournament.

Side notes: I believe, ultimately that debate is as much about listening as it is about talking. I respect debaters who show respect to their opponents and who really process the opposing arguments in order to address them. I don't like an ugly or "arrogant" debate that resorts to ad hominem attacks, sarcasm, or denigrates the opponent. Be kind, be authentic, have fun, and let's debate! :)

P.S.S. for any of my former debaters who read this: I think you are all incredible humans. I was a speech coach who got drawn into debate coaching and it has created the greatest moments of my teaching career. I will remember you always. I have learned as much from you than I have taught any of you. Thanks for making me a better teacher and person. To Dylan, Kayleigh, "DaniEllie", Hannah, Maddy--- thanks for being my day ones. I am here for you always.

I have coached high school debate for twenty-seven years. If you are a progressive (role of the ballot, no value structure, and kritiks) LD debater then please strike me.

Things I like: value clash, signposting, effective time allocation, impact calculus, and rebuttals that focus on analytical comparisons of the arguments (and evidence) rather that repeating your claims or more cards.

Here's the TL;DR version of the paradigm

I am as old-school and traditional as they come when it comes to judging.

Debate is about persuading me (as a proxy for an audience) that your position is the one I should support. I view my role as judge to be in the role of an undecided audience member attending this debate to learn about both sides of the topic. I will use the information, arguments and clash presented in this debate to move me from “undecided” to “decided.”

To do this, I rigorously compare the strengths and weaknesses of the definitions and arguments (or, in LD, the value, value criterion, and contentions) presented and rebutted to determine which side has persuaded me to support their position. I will especially compare the arguments that generate the greatest clash. Since I approach debate as an undecided audience member, I judge strictly on what you say (I mean, this is a competition where you speak your arguments, right?) and WILL NOT read your speeches or your cards, except as noted.

Come at the debate from any perspective or approach you want to--and I do welcome out-of-the-box frameworks provided they provide a reasonable space for clash and argument and can demonstrate direct relevance to the topic. I try to offer each round as blank a slate as I am capable of doing as it relates to the resolution.

Risk-taking is fine as long as you know what you are doing when you take the risk. I like humor. I am generally skeptical of disclosure theory and other "debating about debate" approaches. The game is the game. As long as everyone is in compliance with the tournament rules and the affirmative's definitions allow for clash, I am generally a very hard sell on arguments concerning fairness and disclosure--although you are welcome to try and I will give it as fair a hearing as I can.

To maximize the strength, effectiveness, and persuasiveness of your arguments, they need to be delivered clearly (NO SPREADING), with solid evidence, data, and citations (placed in context for a judge who may not be familiar with them) in a well-organized speech that is delivered TO me, not read like a drone AT me. In other words, you should seek to win on logic and argumentation, but in doing so, you cannot neglect the communications skills necessary to sell your position and ensure that your audience understands your logic and argumentation--just like you would if you were doing this to a real audience in the real world. Accordingly, I should be able to judge the debate solely on the words spoken without having to refer to documentation beyond my own notes when writing my ballot.

If you have any questions about this, ASK!

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

Now for those who want to get into the weeds on my approach to judging and my thinking about debate.

First and foremost, have fun

Debate should not be a slog for you or me. This paradigm, although long, is really about getting the slogging and ticky-tack nonsense out of this process. We are both giving up our weekends to participate in this. Let's enjoy it. Keep it loose.

My philosophy

I am generally a VERY traditional old-school judge with a VERY clear set of expectations and standards. If I had to pick a judging theory that I fit, I tend to fall into the policymaker/legislative model of judging with some purposeful appearance-style judging thrown in.

My "role" or "persona" is of an average, undecided listener looking to form an opinion on the topic

I view my role as judge to be an undecided audience member attending your debate to learn about both sides so I can form my own opinion on the topic. As that audience member, I will use what is presented in this debate to move me from “undecided” to “decided.” Accordingly, I believe debate is about persuasion--winning the minds AND hearts of the audience, which is, in this case, the judge(s). That means this activity is about all the skills of debate: research, argumentation, speech, persuasion, and rhetoric.

--Your arguments must be strong, with sound logic, solid research, and real analysis;
--Your presentation must be well-organized so the audience can follow it effortlessly without roadmaps and signposts;
--You must overcome the reasonable objections put forward by the other side while attacking their contentions, case, and/or values, especially on arguments with significant clash;
--You must show why your side has the better idea (or the other side's ideas are worse than the status quo if you are the negative and not running a counterplan);
--And you must sell all this with a persuasive delivery that seeks to connect with the audience, which means gesturing and movement, making eye contact, varying your vocal tone, showing passion, and speaking clearly and at a normal pace.

Wait! Aren't experienced judges just into technical stuff and do not consider speaking style?

Here is why I incorporate some "appearance-style" judging into my paradigm. As a competition that includes speaking, I firmly believe that debate requires you to both make strong arguments AND communicate them persuasively through your delivery. You should be connecting with your audience at all levels. In the "real world" a dry, lifeless speaker has a tough time winning over an audience no matter how good their arguments are. I hold you to the same standard.

I HATE spreading

SLOW DOWN!!! If you speak significantly faster than a normal rate of speed or if you "spread," it will show up in your comments and impact your speaks negatively. This is a debate, not a speedreading competition to crowbar 10 minutes of content into a 6-minute constructive. You cannot persuade anyone if the listener cannot follow your argument because you are flying through your speech at 250+ words per minute. "Spreading" has really damaged debate as a discipline. If this is an issue for you, please "strike" me as a judge. I will totally understand. I will say CLEAR once and only once if it is too fast.

I make every effort to come into the round agnostic as it relates to the resolution

I am agnostic about both the topic of the debate and how you build your case--it simply has to be both comprehensible enough and persuasive enough to win. You can approach the case from any fair direction that is directly relevant to the resolution and allows for reasonable clash and interaction from the other side. Just remember that I need to clearly understand your argument and that you have to be more persuasive than your opponent. Also note the next item.

Agnosticism ≠ idiocy, therefore Truth > Tech

I will not accept an argument that the average person would immediately know is simply not true. Being agnostic about the resolution does not mean I am an idiot. The sun doesn't come up in the west. 1+1≠3. Telling me things that would obviously be false to someone with an average understanding of the world is not an argument that can flow through, even if your opponent doesn't address it. By the same token, if an argument like this IS offered and the opponent does not attack it, that will be noted as well--negatively.

Assume I know nothing about the topic beyond what an average person would know

The risk of insult is the price of clarity. As a judge, I am not as deep in the weeds on the subject matter as you are. Avoid undefined jargon, assumptions about what I already know, or assuming that I am familiar with your citations. Better to make fewer points that I do understand than to make more points that I do not. This is CRITICAL if this is a public forum round.

I only judge what I HEAR you say and how you say it

This is a debate--a competition rooted in a tradition of speech and rhetoric--not a competitive speed-reading recital of your persuasive essay writing. That means I want to HEAR your speech and citations, which is really hard for me to do if you spread. Let me be clear. I will not read your speech or look at your cards (unless there is some question about the validity of the source). That means if you insist on spreading and I can't follow it, you are going to run into a HUGE problem on my ballot.

Part of being an effective and successful to debater is to ensure that your audience understands your arguments based on what you say without the audience having to look at a document--think about how you would address an audience in a darkened auditorium, and you will get the idea. I will make an exception about requesting cards if I have reason to question your evidence.

I reward risk-taking and humor

Don't be afraid to take some risks. Be interesting. Be funny. Maybe even a little snark, A well-chosen risk can result in big rewards in your score. Just remember they call it a risk for a reason. You will also never hurt yourself by making me laugh. Debate does not have to be somber, and it does not always have to be serious. If you are funny, be funny--provided you remain persuasive.

I pay close attention to definitions/values/value criterion

Define the terms of the resolution (and, in L-D state a value and value criterion), and then explicitly link your arguments, contentions, and rebuttals back to your definitions and values. I want to clearly understand how your arguments relate to how the debate has been framed and/or how it supports your definition and value. What is the point of taking the time to lay this out and then never mentioning them again when you get into your speech?

How I weigh your arguments

The overall strength of your case and arguments--especially where there is clash--relative to your opponent's case is paramount in earning my vote. This means the quality and development of your arguments, contentions, evidence, citations, and rebuttals are far more important to me than quantity.

--Focus on your strongest arguments rather than throwing in the kitchen sink.
--Make sure they link back to your definition and/or your value and value criterion
--Go deep with your analysis before going broad;
--Use examples and metaphors to illustrate your points;
--Tell the story coherently in a speech that is logically organized to lead me to side with your position.

Ties ALWAYS go to the negative/con

The affirmative/pro always has the burden to convince me to change the status quo and in a tie, the affirmative has failed to meet that standard. In any instance where I truly believe both sides fought the round to an absolute draw, I will cast my ballot for the negative/con. For the history nerds out there, this is based on what is known as Speaker Denison's rule, which is a convention in the British House of Commons that when the Speaker votes to break a tie, they never vote for the side that will change the status quo.

Dropped arguments do not always matter to me

Just because your opponent drops a weak argument does not mean I will flow it through. If you jam ten contentions in and the opponent only responds to 9, that does not mean the 10th argument carries, and you should win the debate because it was dropped and therefore flowed through. The quality of the dropped argument matters a lot. As long as your opponent addresses and rebuts your main arguments and effectively responds to your case overall, I will not be concerned that they dropped some weak, secondary contention, especially if they have filled their time. Obviously, not addressing a major argument will hurt any opposing case.

I never allow off-time roadmaps unless the tournament rules require me to

Unless the tournament rules state otherwise, I will not grant ANY off-time road maps. Off-time road maps are a crutch lazy debaters use to avoid getting their speech into a clear, well-organized form. Worse, being off-time, it allows the speaker to preview their arguments without the clock running--essentially giving them free time to communicate without pressure. Nonsense.

Your speech should be properly organized so that a listener can follow it without you having to spoon-feed them what you are going to do up front. If you need to do a roadmap during your allotted running time, you are welcome to burn your clock time to do so, and I will not penalize it. That said, you would be better served simply organizing your speech and, perhaps, doing some signposting.

Give your citations context so I can give them credibility

Assume I know nothing about your citation nor will I read your card unless I have reason to question the validity of your evidence. While I recognize that a citation of "Smith, 2019" is the minimum the rules often require, it has little real credibility if you don't give me some context about why the citation matters. I don't know who Smith is, where you found his material, or what he wrote in 2019. It is SO much better to say something like: "In a 2019 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Julian Smith, an expert on vaccines, wrote...." Now I know where you read it, who Smith is, and when it was written.

I pay very close attention to CX, crossfire, and POIs

While I generally don't "flow" CX/crossfire (or POIs in Parli), it does matter to me. There should be engagement and clash. Debates I have judged are occasionally won or lost in CX when one debater put the other in a logic box or otherwise made the debate impossible for their opponent to win. Use CX/crossfire (or POIs in Parli) to undermine your opponent's arguments and to expose weaknesses and logic problems in their case, rather than rehear parts of the opponent's speeches you missed the first time. Additionally:

--If you are rude during crossfire/CX by aggressively interrupting or cutting off respondents who are not filibustering, it will impact your speaks;
--If you insist on yes/no answers in crossfire/CX when more information is obviously needed to make a response, it will impact your speaks;
--If you keep asking questions in crossfire without giving your opponent a chance to ask some too, it will impact your speaks;
--If you filibuster and are dilatory to try and run out the clock in crossfire/CX (or refuse to answer at least one POI per opposing participant that asks for a POI in Parli), it will impact your speaks and;
--If you are passive and ask no questions in crossfire/CX (or make no POIs in Parli) or sit back and watch during grand crossfire without participating, it will impact your speaks.

Your public speaking and presentation skills matter to me

Your speaking skills and delivery can impact the outcome of the round. Our greatest persuasive communicators are all excellent and compelling speakers. This idea that debate is some monotone recitation with your eyes glued to a piece of paper or a screen while you stand there like a wax statue is absurd. Yes, your arguments and rebuttal of the opposition matter most, but your job does NOT stop there. You must hold the audience's interest too. It is part of the game. That means:

--Speak TO me, do not read AT me;
--Gesture and move to help communicate your arguments;
--Make eye contact;
--Vary your tone and vocal emphasis;
--Show some passion to demonstrate you really believe what you are saying.

I am the official timer of the round unless the rules say otherwise

Unless the tournament rules state otherwise, I am the official timer of the debate. You may use your timer to monitor your speaking time (but you MUST turn off any sounds or alarms or you will be penalized in your speaker points after one warning), but my time governs.

Before each speech or crossfire, I will ask, "is (are) the speaker (participants) ready? Are the opponents ready? Time begins now." At that point, speaking may start. I will announce "time has expired" when the clock runs out. You may finish your sentence if I make that announcement mid-sentence. No more speaking after that unless the tournament rules allow for a grace period or otherwise limit my discretion to end the speech. I will also update both sides about the remaining prep time during the round.

The game is the game

If something is required by the rules of the tournament, do it--if not, game on. If the tournament rules do not require it, then it is up to you if you want to disclose, etc. Arguments about disclosure, debate fairness (other than debatability of the resolution as framed by the affirmatives' definitions), etc., will meet heavy skepticism if the other team is acting within the rules of the tournament and civil behavior. I am agnostic about arguments for and against the actual resolution. I have limited interest in debates about debating--unless that is the topic. You can certainly argue it in front of me if you want, and I will do my best to take it seriously, but in almost every case you would be better served simply debating the topic and then taking up your disclosure/fairness issues with the coaches, tournament directors, and league administrators.

I will not tolerate racism, rudeness, or nonsense

If you make faces, gestures, or otherwise show disdain for the person speaking, know it will negatively impact your score. Also, anything you say or do that demeans the race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc., of ANYONE (unless you are directly quoting a relevant source or citation), WILL ruin your score. It WILL be reported to the tournament authorities.

I have debated for 4 years and in that time I have only completed in public forum. I am very experienced with pf and I will be flowing. In terms of judging make sure that you are weighing. Overall in debate I hope to see clash and good clean debate.

Yes I would like to be added to the email chain, my email address is lucas.mcintosh21@gmail.com

I am a current junior at Liberty University and have been debating on the University’s Debate team for the past year and counting. I have done policy as well as K debates for the time I have been competing and I enjoy both. I strongly believe that debate is a game, some think it is more, I encourage all who participate to be nice and have fun!

Important for all aspects of debate:

Depth over breadth, explain in detail if you have a lot of off-case.

K’s

I enjoy a good K debate and have expectations for when it occurs. I am biased to the capk but if a K is explained well enough I will enjoy it. The most important aspect at the end of the debate is you must be able to explain your link and please explain your alt and how it functions. One other word of advice: do not forget your aff!

DA’s

Strong impact analysis, as well as logical arguments used with Disads, are preferred.

CP’s

Make sure your counterplan has a net benefit and try to prove its competitiveness.

Theory

When presented well I enjoy theory arguments. A core belief of mine is CONDO GOOD

CX

Cross x is usually the most exciting part of a debate- Do not waste these 3 minutes!

Lastly, please don’t assume I know all the jargon of debate as I am not familiar with the high school topic. In a speech, I look for clarity over speed. For speaks, I care about clarity and how the argument is presented, did you engage the judge? Were you kind to your opponent and your partner? These are aspects I consider when judging. If you have read the paradigm this far, I will reward you with a .2 bump in speaks If you say "That's not very slay" in a speech.

I'm a trial attorney who has had countless bench and jury trials. I also debated in high school (policy and LD). I value organization, well-reasoned arguments, a pace that can be followed (not so fast I can't keep up), and persuasion. It is important that a person argue the facts as they are but distinguish the facts when necessary.

With team events, I like to see partners on the same page, making arguments that work together.

We all make mistakes, sometimes get tongue-tied, and realize later that perfect thing we should have said. This is perfectly ok, but the thing I'm looking for is the ability to pick yourself up and move on when you've made a mistake or had challenges. A person can absolutely win with a very strong conclusion!

The most important thing is to have fun and learn from the experience.

I value civility in debate. I expect competitors to treat each other with respect at all times.

Good luck!

On arguments. I appreciate arguments that acknowledge the complexity of the imperfect world we live in. There are no perfect solutions to the issues we debate, so I find it disingenuous to pretend otherwise. These issues are complicated; approach them with compassion and nuance. In LD, this means I really want you to lean into the lens of your value. Engage with your opponent's arguments authentically, don't twist their words or intentionally misconstrue what they are saying for a "technical gotcha."

On delivery. Slow down. I know it's not speech, but I'd like your delivery to add something. I don't want to feel like I would have been better off simply reading your argument. Consider variance in tone, tempo, and volume. Pauses separate ideas and can add emphasis.

On losing me. I will question your entire argument if you use logical fallacies, outdated research, or clearly unreliable sources. Do not use arguments that rely on racism, sexism, classism, etc. You will lose my respect if you attempt to intimidate your opponent.

About me. I'm an English teacher who loves cats, books, and learning new things. I value passion and creativity in others. Kindness and compassion are more important than the win.

Please add me to the email chain at psophia340@gmail.com

I'm new to judging. I will have patience with you and I ask you extend that to me. I'm a college Public Policy debater with Liberty University. Convince me that your argument or value is good and the other is bad and I'll vote for you.

Foul language is something I'll give you low speaker points on, so if you choose to use it that's up to you. If you say at any point death is bad then I'll probably vote against you automatically. Other than that, I'm open to learning new things and new viewpoints.

All in all, tell me why you should win and why your argument is better. If you say something to the effect of "Judge, vote for me because [x, y, z]" I'll literally be more inclined to do so. The rebuttals are the important arguments in which you should be saying why you're arguing for your value and why I should accept it.

In the end, have fun and have a good debate.

I have been a debate coach for the last few yeara.  I am experienced in both LD and PF.  I prefer a conversational pace as opposed to spreading.  You can easily speak so quickly that the merits of your arguments can go unnoticed.  Above all, be respectful to your fellow competitor.  

I am a former competitor in high school, college and grad school. I've been judging debate for twenty plus years. Most experience has been in LD but last six years I've judged plenty of public forum. If I can not understand your argument because of speeding it is not valid. So, no speeding. Need clash of arguments or very tech decision. Do not let the round come down to a definition debate.