she/her

Hey, I'm Audrey! I'm a junior at Carrollton High School and a VPF debater on the Georgia and national circuits.

If you plan on calling for cards, please create an email chain and add me. My email is audbro1@trojanstudent.net.

Feel free to let me know if you have any questions before or after the round, either through email or in person.

On to judging (general, more specifically PF?)

- I'm a tech judge. It all comes down to the evidence. I will listen to any argument as long as it's extended, defended well, and not totally stupid. Debate's a game.

- Go as fast as you want, but don't sacrifice clarity. Do not spread without sending everyone a speech doc.

- I don't flow cross but use it to determine speaker points. Also, note that while what's said isn't being physically written on my paper, it can shed light on holes in arguments.

- Please time yourselves to ensure that you aren't egregiously abusing time. To me, this means 7-10 seconds over. I'll be timing speeches, cross, and prep.

- I don't enjoy hearing theory but have some competitive experience. If you run theory, ensure that it is not an abuse in and of itself. If it's frivolous and the opposing team calls you out, I will drop you, and it won't weigh on me. Don't run disclosure on the Georgia circuit; that's abusive.

- Paraphrasing is acceptable (after the card has been introduced), but if the evidence obviously doesn't say what you frame it as and the opposing team calls you out, it will be considered for my decision. When an opponent asks for evidence, roughly a minute will be given to provide the card before I discount it. (Of course, this doesn't apply to any technological difficulties!)

- Signposting is phenomenal; please do it! Line-by-line rebuttals and summaries are much appreciated. Frontline in second rebuttal/first summary.

- Weighing is essential; do it as soon as possible. If the weighing is left to me, it might not be considered how you would like. When weighing, I'm not looking for a simple "we outweigh on magnitude/probability/scope." Instead, warrant these weighing mechanisms or provide analysis that isn't just throwing debate jargon at a wall in hopes that something will stick.

- Be respectful in a round, or I will tank your speaker points. There is absolutely no reason to be rude.

As for other events,

- I've only had experience judging PF, LD, and Impromptu. That being said, I feel decently competent in most events. I understand how arguments flow through and the necessary aspects of speeches; this will be the reasoning behind my decision. Regarding policy and LD, treat me more like a flay judge.

A few extras,

- I'm generally pretty generous with speaker points. The quality of speeches is taken into account. Unless you did something terrible, your speaks won't be lower than 27.5.

- I disclose. Usually, I will give a few points as to why I cast my ballot and a more detailed view of the round on Tabroom (totally open to questioning after my ballot is submitted). If it's a time crunch at the tournament, I'd rather just disclose my decision and an RFD on Tab.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to email me.

Have a stellar round!

Hey, I am Zooey!

Debate should be about dialog and not confrontation. I realize people get excited when stating and reinforcing a point of view, but please, let’s keep it civilized.

Be mindful of your allotted time and articulate your points clearly and concisely.

I like to see eye contact, knowledge of your topic, and interchange between debaters when proving/disproving points.

Rapid speaking is acceptable if it is understandable.

I am a lay judge.

Hey I'm Santino, I currently attend Carrollton High School and have been debating mainly PF since sophomore year. As a senior, I debate Varsity PF more frequently than anything else but I have some experience with speech and LD formats.

When it comes to judging I tend to favor the speakers/debaters that show actual argumentative skills in a round. If you present an argument in constructive and then just rattle off the same info in every speech without front-lining or meaningful clash; I will vote you down. There needs to be heavy analysis from both sides when forming arguments so that the debate can really show some thought and meaningful clash. Additionally if you are calling for every opponent card in a round I will decide my vote before the round even ends; Do not do this. Constantly calling for cards is abusive and makes the round miserable for not only the other team, but for me as well. If two cards tell the complete opposite thing, or if the card just sounds completely false; I will use round time and ask both teams to put that specific evidence in the chat.

A good debater should engage their opponent in a smart way, it is natural to be passionate about your argument and it is meaningful to me when I see you putting emotion into a speech. Just remember the thin line between assertion and aggression; if you are meaningfully assertive during a round it can be powerful, but if you are aggressive to the point of essentially calling your opponents idiots, constantly cutting them off, or just generally being disrespectful I will tank speaker points.

I do not care about spreading at all, I have the ability to listen and write down everything you say, it is all about how clear and concise you are when you speak. If you spread, but stumble on every other word, slow it down, it's better to be clear than fast.

Extend, Extend, Extend. It is very important in a round that you extend information from the very first speech, I should be able to see your argument points in every single section on my workspace, as well as draw clear lines through.

Finally just make sure you impact everything out so I have something to vote on in the end, you could have the most powerful argument and support it fully but without impacts; timeframe, probability, empirics, your argument has no weight. Extend impacts to the very last speech.

One last thing is that I completely understand the online situation for all debaters. I miss in-person debate as much as all of you guys; so I am sympathetic to you all. I know there are difficulties with internet connections, microphones, and cameras, we will work through all of the kinks in-round and sort it all out so that we can get as close to in-person as possible.

Have fun everyone and keep debating because there is always more to learn.

*My paradigm consists mostly of bits and pieces from Lenora Popken's paradigm since I appreciate their judging style.

Speed: I am somewhat comfortable with speed, but I am not comfortable with spreading if the spread is too fast I will tell you twice, after that, I will flow what I interpret (you don't want this). However, I also find in this current digital platform enunciation and clarity can be lost, so be careful with your speed.

Timing: You can always time yourselves but I will time you. Please do not time each other, I find that is often seen as disrespectful. I usually allow around 5 - 10 seconds over the timer, do not abuse it, use it to finish what you're saying.

Theory: Go for it, if you want, but the argument needs to be clear and concise. Also, in general, I am wary of using theory in PF debate because the topic has been chosen for a reason.

Organization: Please make it clear what contentions you are arguing/rebutting, just makes it easier to flow.

Cross-Fire: I love cross-fires, I think they can easily change the debate. Therefore I am okay with "heated" cross-fires. HOWEVER, it must remain respectful. Also though I do pay attention, I do not flow it—so if something important happens bring it up in a speech.

Summary Speeches: I don't consider brand new arguments raised during the summary speeches. I just don't think it's fair because the other team will not have adequate time to respond.

Final Focus: Supposed to be a summary, give me your voters and make them clear. Tell me why I am voting for you.

Pronouns: My pronouns are He/Him

How to get extra points: If you make Rick and Morty references in round, I'll give you extra speaker points.

Decision: I vote based on the flow, so do not drop arguments and be sure to offer rebuttals against all your opponent's arguments, and impacts. If the flow/impact debate is not clear, I will consider the quality of the presentation and/or the evidence relied on.

One last thing: Let's all be respectful.

Info: ryderalwaysdebating@gmail.com

Im Will Roberson this is my third year judging/competing in PF

• let me know if you drop anything
• No new evidence in second summary
• have evidence prepared
• im ok with normal vernacular
• pls extend all evidence I firmly believe this is critical to keep a link chain intact
• pls be respectful in all cross i don't mind if you tell during speeches though
• im okay with spreading just don't go crazy with it
• Tech>truth

Educational Background:

Georgia State University (2004-2007) - English Major in Literary Studies; Speech Minor

Augusta University (2010-2011) - Masters in Arts in Teaching

Georgia State University (2015-2016) - Postbaccalaureate work in Philosophy

Revelant Career Experience:

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2011-2015) Grovetown High School

LD Debate Coach (2015-2018) Marist School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2018-2022) Northview High School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2022-present) Lassiter High School

Public Forum

Argue well. Don’t be rude. I’ll flow your debate, so make the arguments you need to make.

Policy

I haven't judged a lot of policy debates. I'm more comfortable with a little slower speed since I don't hear a lot of debates on the topic. I'm ok with most any time of argumentation, but I'm less likely to vote on theory arguments than K or Case arguments. Add me to your email chains.

Lincoln Douglas

I appreciate well warranted and strong arguments. Keep those fallacies out of my rounds.

If the negative fails to give me a warranted reason to weigh her value/value criterion above the one offered by the affirmative in the first negative speech, I will adopt the affirmative's FW. Likewise, if the negative offers a warranted reason that goes unaddressed in the AR1, I will adopt the negative FW.

I appreciate when debaters provide voters during the final speeches.

Debaters would probably describe me as leaning "traditional", but I am working to be more comfortable with progressive arguments. However, I'll vote, and have voted, on many types of arguments (Plans, Counterplans, Ks, Aff Ks, and theory if there is legitimate abuse). However, the more progressive the argument and the further away from the topic, the more in depth and slower your explanation needs to be. Don't make any assumptions about what I'm supposed to know.

Debates that don't do any weighing are hard to judge. Be clear about what you think should be on my ballot if you're winning the round.

Speed

If you feel it absolutely necessary to spread, I will do my best to keep up with the caveat that you are responsible for what I miss. I appreciate folks that value delivery. Take that as you will. If you're going to go fast, you can email me your case.

Disclosure

I try to disclose and answer questions if at all possible.

Cross Examination/Crossfire

I'm not a fan of "gotcha" debate. The goal in crossfire shouldn't get your opponent to agree to some tricky idea and then make that the reason that you are winning debates. Crossfire isn't binding. Debaters have the right to clean-up a misstatement made in crossfire/cross ex in their speeches.

Virtual Debate

The expectation is that your cameras remain on for the entirety of the time you are speaking in the debate round. My camera will be on as well. Please add me to the chain.

Axioms

“That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” — Christopher Hitchens

”There are three ways to ultimate success: The first way is to be kind. The second way is to be kind. The third way to be kind.” — Mr. Rogers

Contact: jonwaters7@gmail.com

Please speak clearly, concisely, and slow enough that I can understand. Refute your opponents claims and weigh the evidence. Take the big picture in your final rebuttal. Don't get caught in the weeds in the end. Connect the dots for me.

he/him

If anyone reading this feels that debate or the debate community isn't a safe place for them and wants someone to talk to about it, no matter how small the issue, please reach out. If I or someone I know has made you feel unsafe, please do not hesitate to let me know so I can attempt to rectify the situation and/or change my behavior. You can email me, message me through any social media platform, or talk to me.

Please produce an email chain and add me to it: zimmerlukew@gmail.com

My Philosophy:

Do as you please and I will try my best to meet both teams where they are at. I'm happy with debates fast/slow, K or theory/traditional, quoted/paraphrased, and appreciate most styles of PF.

Strategic Praxis in Front of Me:

• Less is more. Please collapse. You can win almost any debate in front of me by going for like, two arguments; maybe 3.
• Probability weighing is mid. If an argument isn't probable, you should simply answer the link. Probability is derived from the link debate, not your new defense in second summary or innate disbelief in something.
• Lemme hear some warrants.
• Your weighing should reflect an intimate understanding of your arguments. You should thoroughly research and ponder the relative importance of the arguments you're preparing; your resulting weighing in the debate should be evidence-based and meet the same rigor as any other argument.
• I politely request that someone -- anyone -- simply answer their opponents' weighing.