Hi. I have been judging Speech and Debate on and off the last several years. This is my first time judging nationals and policy.

I love to see honest acting in interpretation events. If you have blocking, l'd like it to be clearly purposeful and clean. Most importantly, have fun.

In platform events I like you have unique analyses of your topics with clear implications. Again, above all else, just have fun.

Spread only if the speed you use also allows for enough enunciation that I can understand. I can keep up, but only if I can comprehend.

I believe in traditional debate. In LD, everything is about the V/VC construct and should apply to it. I don't really care about definition debate unless it is absolutely vital. Observations don't really matter to me unless both sides agree to them.

In, PF I try to take the position of a typical citizen judge and base "my knowledge" only on what you tell me in the round and not what I already know. Civility is still important in cross-examination so it is important to remember that with me.

In Policy, I am least familiar, so I base everything on my flow and which side has the most arguments standing by the end of the debate. Also, and I know it may be unusual, but I do care if the plan actually makes sense because I can't vote for it if it doesn't.

I don't listen to parenthetical documentation as a source. What does that mean anyway???

Pronouns - he/him

Email - thadflagge@gmail.com

I was a policy debater for Madison Central for 3 years during high school, so that's what I have the most experience with, but I've judged all of the debates.

Generally, I'm tech > truth, and I'll let you do your thing and entertain whatever arguments you decide (as long as they aren't racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.)

I value respect as well. I want the debaters to be respectful to each other during cross and at other times during the debate.

Policy

I appreciate teams that clearly know the ins and outs of the topic and their strategy. I'll vote for the team that thoroughly explains why they win. I appreciate good impact analysis and very good clash (please don't just say nuclear war and expect to get my ballot without explaining why your DA or case leads to it).

T - I'm tech > truth on T arguments. That being said, I default to the more reasonable interpretation that I receive in the debate unless a team makes the argument why I shouldn't. If you do decide to run T, make sure that you include impacts to your interp, etc.

Ks - I was a K debater for a good bit of my career, so I'm open to any arguments. I'm familiar with most lit on antiblackness, afropess, etc. but again, it's been a while since I've been in a debate round. For the most part, my face will give it away if you have to do any further explaining or something like that.

DAs - I appreciate DAs that are solid on the link level. That being said though, if you're forced to use generics, it's fine, but make sure that they're explained well in later speeches if you have to extend them.

FW - In T debates and K debates, FW, in my opinion, is the most important aspect of the debate. I'll reward the team that does the most effective clash and articulates their arguments the best.

Speed - It's been a while since I've debated, but while I was doing it I was pretty good with speed. To be safe though, if you choose to spread, make sure I'm shared on the case doc and then you can read as fast as you want. Make sure you slow down for anything significant that's not on the document though.

LD

I was a policy debater, so I'm open to hearing more progressive LD debates. If you choose to run something progressive, see the policy section of the paradigm. If not, then just make it accessible to me and I'll give you a fair shot. Make sure there is good clash.

PF

I feel like PF should be the most accessible of the debates; therefore, I won't be as lenient with speed. I'll reward the team who does the best arguing (clash, nuance, etc.).

Let's have a great round!

I did Speech and Debate for 4 years. I did Original Oratory, Expository Speaking, Prose, Poetry, Congress, and some Policy.

I may stop writing now and again, but this is so that I can focus on what you are saying (I usually just jot down what sticks out). Spreading is fine, but if you can refrain from doing so I'd rather actually hear your points, so be clear. Keep it classy and be nice to your opponents. Don't falsify evidence. Be thorough with your arguments and tell me why you should win.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round. Best of luck.

Hi Everyone!

Background

I have experience in VLD (both local and circuit). I'm currently a first year at Vandy studying Medicine, Health, and Society (possibly prelaw or premed).

How to Win My Ballot

- I love a good a framework debate. If you're engaging framework and making extensions throughout the round to prove why your framework is important, I am much more likely to vote for you.

- If you say anything ridiculously discriminatory in round, that will warrant in automatic L. I will not tolerate it. Period.

- I can flow spreading, but I don't like it.

- I'm not voting for an argument just because it's in your case. That would require me to engage in too much critical thinking. The more work you do to convince me that your argument has an impact (magnitude, scope, time frame), the easier my job becomes.

- Please outline clear voters and signpost.

As a judge, I begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. That means I am ok with generally fast speeches, along with counter-plans, disadvantages, and kritiks. When it comes to speaking fast, just me a roadmap before every speech about which arguments you are addressing. When addressing kritiks, I don't care what types of kritiks you use. I just will evaluate based on which team has argued what makes the kritik revelant and why does the kritik give ground to vote in the aff or neg. I prefer if debaters respond to arguments in the order they were presented. Don't overcomplicate points or key arguments. To keep overcomplication to a minimum, clear signposting is greatly appreciated. Regarding the substance of your argument, the most important is the warrants/evidence. The heavy impacts cannot occur if you can clearly argue what triggers them.

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, you know what the topic is: debate it.

CP- just be topical if a counterplan isnt topical. I'm not going to rely on the CP for a vote.

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.

Hello competitors!

My name is Kara and this is my second year with speech and debate. I've competed in mostly interpretation events, as well as some speech events. `I have also competed in Public Forum. I am so excited to see your pieces and debates! If you have any questions about anything, do not hesitate to come up to me at any future tournaments!

I am looking for the following:

Speech/Interp

Preparation- Is your piece memorized? Can I tell that you have worked hard on this piece instead of throwing it together at the last minute? I want to be able to know that you worked on and put your blood sweat and tears into the piece you are presenting. :)

Volume vs. Acting- (This is mostly for interpretation events + Declamation) Obviously I need to be able to hear you, but is that all you are putting into your piece? Volume is essential, however, there needs to be more to your piece than that. Emotions do not always have to be portrayed as screaming and I need to be able to see you developing your characters and making them believable. The most basic way I can say this is do not focus on loud acting. I would rather have someone quieter act well than someone yelling and not acting.

Storyline/creativity- Does the story you're telling make sense? Can I follow what you are saying? Basically I just want to be able to follow along with the story you're telling. Put me into the world you are creating with your piece! Did you add some personal spice to the story? Originality is always entertaining. Draw me in. Show me something I wouldn't expect.

Debate

Understanding- This sort of goes two ways. The first one being can I tell that you understand the topic? Is it clear to me that you know what you're talking about? You must first understand the topic to debate on it. The next one is can I understand what you are talking about. Make your arguments and attacks clear to me.

Attacking and Defending- This is kind of obvious lol. Are you defending your own case well? Are you attacking your opponent well? Make it clear to me that your case is the one that stands.

Attitude/General Rule following (this goes for both debate and IEs)- If you are breaking a rule in an event then I will have to take off points for that (ex. moving below the waist in prose or poetry, touching in duo, etc.) I put attitude in this category because even though it is not an explicit rule, disrespect (unkind words, uncivil treatment towards competitors in a debate, booing, laughing at competitors (unless the piece calls for that), leaving for performances, etc.) will not be tolerated.

Check your ballots for personal feedback. Remember to have fun, and good luck!

Hi! I'm Sara :)) I am in my third year of speech and debate, most of my experience is in PF and interpretation events. My RFD will be based on the following for debates:

PF:

• Speed isn't a huge issue, but if you speak too fast I may not be able to flow. (signpost!!) {basically a roadmap}
• I don't flow crossfire so bring up any arguments you thought were essential.
• TECH >TRUTH meaning that I will take anything said in round as fact unless the opposing side is able to rebut thoroughly.
• Re-iterate arguments so I know that they are important for your case. (there is no such thing as redundancy in pf)
• Final Focus is for key voting issues, weigh your arguments.Nothing new should be brought up here unless it was brought up in summary.

LD:

- LD is value debate, so value clash should be a major point of the round. Any framework is fine as long as you are able to explain to me why you win the round.

Some general things I expect :)

• Be respectful (this goes for the judge AND opponents) I don't want to dock points for this. Any types of disrespect (rude commentary, leaving in the middle of a performance, talking during someones piece etc.) will dock you points.
• (This is for mainly debate) If you go over time, I will no longer continue to flow what you are saying. (time yourself, i'll be timing as well)
• Try your best !!!
• Most importantly, have FUN !!

I'll give more detailed explanations in ballots, don't stress, you guys got this :)

I am knowledgeable about LD and PF debate styles. I debated in high school for four years and was a member of the Alabama Forensic Council now.

I know how to judge progressive debate, but I prefer not to. I think some progressive debate has leaned towards elitism and I believe all debate should be accessible to all peoples. For that reason, it is ok if you spread- but I prefer you not to. If you are bad at spreading, I will tell you you're bad at spreading. Always be sure to flash me and your opponent your cases if you choose to spread.

I judge off flow. Simple as that.

Debate

-Please state contentions/points clearly

-Do NOT spread (talk extremely fast; not understandable)

-Please ask questions during crossfire and remember that all speakers should talk during grand cross

-Weighing is important and preferred, especially in FF

-I expect respect (to me, and to your competitors)

-Most importantly, have fun! :)

Speech/Interp

Nothing specific just try to remember a walking pattern, memory blips are okay, just keep going!

After 4 years of judging in MS and at five National Tournaments, the most important advice I can give if I am selected to be your judge is:

*Be respectful of yourself, your opponent/fellow competitors, and your judges.  This includes being mindful of your time constraints, being considerate in your conversations/arguments/speeches, and being well prepared to present your case(s) and/or your piece(s). 

*Have fun!  You can take this tournament seriously, be well-prepared, and have a blast all at the same time.  Your time in high school will fly by, so no regrets, only memories!  

Good luck!