Hello! My name is Tristan Chasing Hawk and I'm a former debater and interper.

I've competed in and coached oral interpretation for over a decade. I value honest, purposeful, and nuanced acting/storytelling. Spectacle, while enjoyable, is not something that normally decides rankings for me. I promise to give you my full attention (that you rightfully deserve) and comments seeking to uplift and improve your performance.

I also have experience competing in and judging PF and LD.

As a PF judge, I tend to refer back to the flow and appreciate clean, well organized rebuttals/speeches. I love a good framework but please please PLEASE don't let it muddy the debate. Logical arguments must be backed up well by unbiased, expert sources for them to stand in my mind. Just identify the biggest points of the round and argue accordingly for us all to have a good round.

As an LD judge, I still follow the flow closely. Value/Criterion clash is essential to my judging because it tells me how I'm going to evaluate the cases/arguments that follow. The rest of my judging is based on how well morality relates to the V/C, topic, and how well arguments are formed/responded to.

I sometimes write comments that make sense in my mind but maybe don't make sense on paper. If you have any questions on why I judged in a particular way or the meaning behind a specific comment, please feel free to reach me at tristan.chasinghawk@gmail.com

I debated in the mid 1980's, almost exclusively inside South Dakota and coached some HS debate while I was attending college in Minnesota. I continued to judge some throughout the 90's. In the mid 2010's, I re-engaged with the activity. In the 2021-22 season, I added a part-time gig, becoming the assistant coach at SF Jefferson.

Policy: I'm a 1980's policymaker, weighing advantages vs disadvantages, but I will certainly vote on stock issues in the real absence of inherency, solvency or topicality.

Debate started changing dramatically in the late 70's and I was in the first wave of spread 1.0, almost laughable when compared to today's spread on the circuit and collegiate level. I believe spread and K's pushed policy debate to an extreme that required the creation of PF. The speed of today's South Dakota PF feels a lot like 1980's policy debate, quick, but nothing close to crazy. I am making it somewhat of a personal mission to keep PF from tipping over the edge.

I outlined my thought on judging policy above.

Public Forum: I am looking for clash -- real clash and sound logical reasoning and quality extension evidence that makes your case. Don't paraphrase. I consider K's and counterplans out of hand. I also place a premium on signposting (anything that can help me keep as organized a flow as possible). Teams that fail to do this leave themselves at a real competitive disadvantage. Weigh impacts and construct a narrative around why I should vote for your side of the resolution. Finally: If your team is 2nd speaker, your rebuttal absolutely has to get back to your Case and counter the attacks made against it!

I value exceptional speaking and rhetorical excellence. I love speakers that can change my perception on issues, speakers who possess a passion for the topic and the activity. If you find a way to be unique and memorable, you will have a significant competitive advantage over 90% of your competition. While speaking skills are not as important as research and argumentation in helping me decide a round, they are often the difference maker in a close round. They are also somewhat of a lost art as PF begins to look and sound more like policy -- which is a shame.

I occasionally judge LD -- it also has been impacted by the spread/K revolution. I am looking for many of the same skills I'm looking for in PF. I appreciate debaters who help me weigh the competing value/criterions and what should take precedent within a particular resolution. Connect your V/C to your contentions. Tell me why we should frame the resolution through your V/C instead of your opponents. I need help connecting philosophy to your contentions -- take the time to explain it to me in a clear and persuasive manner. Don't assume I have a working knowledge of these scholars, because I probably don't or, the few I may have heard or read about, have likely been forgotten.

On a scale of 1/10 for speed, I would consider myself about a 5 In policy debate and a 6-7 in PF/LD. On a scale of 1/10 for openness to alternative argumentation, I would be fairly low on a 1-10 scale. For policy -- quite open to topicality, less to counterplans, and a big hurdle to get my ballot if your case hinges on a series of Kritik arguments. For PF -- I consider myself a local/regional kind of guy. I am open to speed, not spread. I think disclosure theory is bogus (debate is a speech activity -- an argument hasn't been made until a speech is delivered). Don't run K's.

E-mail for email chains and/or questions:Travis.Dahle@k12.sd.us

tl/dr - I prefer old school argumentation but won't intervene - I'm also old and slower on flowing 5/10 - don't waste time on evidence sharing

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

I have very little national circuit experience in LD as I primarily judge public forum and policy debate (see more on that below). In LD I am more of a traditional judge as in I like a discussion of the resolution from the standpoint of a value and value-criterion and contention debate. That being said, at Dowling I voted for a Plant-ontology aff, a Counter-plan on the neg, etc. so while I prefer the classic style, I don't intervene into the round either and if you have a good RoB, then I'll listen to it and will focus the debate on that if that's what you make it.

I'm about a 5/10 on speed. I'm old now and prefer to actually hear the evidence of the debate rather than read the evidence on an e-mail chain...

Public Forum Paradigm

Public Forum should NOT be a shorter version of Policy Debate. Meaning, I don't want to see K's, DA's, Topicality, Plans and CP's in Public Forum - nor am I a big fan of speed in PF. I love policy debate, but I also love that Public Forum is not policy and it's an option for people who don't want to do policy debate. This doesn't mean that you can't go a little faster than you would for a lay judge, but don't go crazy.

****EVIDENCE SHARING****

This should absolutely NOT TAKE SO FREAKING LONG!!!!! Seriously people, you should all have your evidence ready to be shared - in fact, I would prefer that people actually share their evidence before they begin their speeches if everyone is going to spend this much time asking for evidence. PF rounds are becoming 90 minute rounds because apparently trying to find evidence and asking about evidence magically doesn't come out of any prep time or crossfire time, but magic time that doesn't exist.

IF YOU WASTE THAT MUCH TIME TRYING TO PUT TOGETHER YOUR EVIDENCE PEOPLE ARE ASKING FOR I AM GOING TO START DECREASING POINTS! Have your poop in a group people - this is getting old!

Big Questions Debate - I don't judge BQ a ton, however, I'd look at my paradigm much like the PF and LD paradigms below.

tl/dr - Slow down, enunciate, use evidence and weight the debate at the end - do it all respectfully to your opponent

Extemp Paradigm

I am a mix of content and delivery when it comes to judging. When it comes to sources, don't make stuff up. With the internet available now, if I suspect you are making things up, I will probably check it when you are speaking. You don't have to make stuff up - unlike the olden days where you hoped to have a file on the Togo questions Washington put out each year - you can literally google your info and bring it up instantly.

Also - ANSWER THE QUESTION - don't waffle - pick a stance and tell me why you choose that way. Pretty simple.

Don't overly fidget or dance around - but don't be a robot either.

Have fun!!!!

Policy Paradigm

In essence, I am a tabula rosa judge, meaning that I will pretty much listen to anything and will evaluate it based on the arguments in the round. That doesn't mean I don't have things I prefer or things I think are bad arguments (which I will go over) - but for the most part, I will listen to anything in the round. However, unless you tell me how you want me to evaluate the round, I will default to a Policy Making paradigm. I have been the head coach at Washington HS since 2009.

Speed: I've gotten old here and have grown weary with blazing speed - put me down as a 5/10 on speed. I'd rather have the ability to hear the evidence instead of having to read through everything on an e-mail chain. If you go too fast I'll let you know - you won't automatically lose, you'll just annoy me a little - unless you ignore me, which if I'm on a 3-judge panel and I'm the outlier - I totally get.

Tag-Team CX - It's okay, but I'm not a huge fan of this. One thing I like about policy is that you should know what you are talking about. I don't mind the occasional help, but if you keep answering every question, it makes your partner look like a tool. And even if they are, you probably don't want to show that they are in front of judges.

Arguments I like: I have always felt that the more you know about what a judge likes and dosn't like is essential to winning debate rounds, so to make it easier on you, these are the type of arguments that I prefer to be seen run.

Case Debate - this is a lost art in the debate community. Why as a negative are you granting them their harms and their solvency? If you can have some solid arguments against their case and point out the serious flaws in them, that will help you weight your DA's, K's and CP's over them.

Economic DA's - I have an economic background and like Econ DA's as long as they are run correctly. Generic spending DA's are usually not run correctly.

There are other DA's, but those usually vary by each year, but as long as you have a solid link to the case, you should be good to go.

Arguments I'm not wild about: Again, the more you know, the better off you will be. Once you read this list does it mean to absolutely not run these arguments - no. What it means is that you better run them better than most teams who run the crappy versions of them. I'll vote for these arguments (and have lots of times) - I'm just not wild about them.

Politics DA's - I've changed a lot on these and used to hate them but realize the strategic advantage of them. That being said, not my biggest fan, but have voted for a lot of them over the years

K's Read at blazing speed - I don't mind some K's, but most of the authors that debaters cite go so beyond the realm of what is possible to discuss in a debate round that they end up bastardizing the entire theory they are supposidly trying to use. Also, if I haven't researched and read the material, how can I evaluate it if you are reading it at a blazzingly fast speed. I don't mind K's, but I'd like to understand them, so please, assume I haven't read the theory - because I probably haven't.

Performance - this is just my inexperience with performance. I've probably only judged it a couple of times, so if you do performance, I may not understand how to evaluate it and might default to the policy framework - so you need to make sure to explain to me the role of the ballot and my role in the debate. I have voted for Performance affs and discourse affs - again, more inexperience than anything makes me put this in the category of things I'm not wild about.

As always, I'm open to questions before the round if you have any other specifics. All in all, I like good debates - if you can argue well and clash with each other, I really don't care what is argued - as long as it is argued well!

TL;DR, be clear be confident be kind

I competed in policy for 2 years and PF my last 2, I’d rather not see PF develop into a shortened CX

I am very traditionalist. Everything you say should be fairly easy to comprehend by a person off the street as this is an educational event. I won’t vote on generic or off-the-wall impacts unless dropped or explained really well. Probability>magnitude I'm not a huge fan of extinction impacts. I only vote FW if your opponent completely drops it. Don't be abusive, anything that goes against the educational and fair nature of the event is a good way to lose my vote. Make it clear where the card ends and the analysis starts.

Constructive: Don’t have something in your case as a time filler you plan on kicking later. Don’t push the pace and please show emotion while reading your case.

Cross: Be firm but don’t be rude, if your opponent asks for a follow up allow it but after 1 it’s your job to cut them off. This time is completely yours, I’ll never vote on it. Also, you need a good poker face, try to hide your reactions to your opponents.

Prep: Use it, even if your speech is ready you should look over your flows and see if there is anything you could add. You don’t need to save 1:30 of prep for the final focus.

Rebuttal: I’m still very policy-like here, blocks are more than OK but don’t act like it’s your first time reading them. Go down the flow in a consistent manner, I love it when teams cross-apply cases but make sure it makes sense when you do it. If something is dropped point it out, otherwise, I cannot vote on it.

Summary: Start crystallizing, and try to avoid new args, especially as 2nd speaker. Don’t spend all your time on clashed args it's okay to drop them if it's unclear, use your speech to point out areas you’re clearly winning. I vote really hard on weighing so please be clear with that.

Final Focus: Voters, Voters, Voters. It’s ok to drop at this point, go all-in on the args you’re winning. Tell the story of the round, act human, and show emotion.

TLDR:

be nice, don’t drop things, and make sure you point out drops

About me:

I did four years of public forum and domestic extemp with Aberdeen Central and am now a political science major at the University of South Dakota (go yotes!). I keep pretty up to date with current events in the United States and abroad and like to think I know what is going on in the world for the most part. I am also a lover of cats, movies, and Christmas :)

Public Forum:

Drops:

I am going to be a flow over anything judge.

If you drop it and the other team points that out, then its gone and I won’t vote on it. That being said, I think it is the burden of the speaker to get back to touch everything they are going to pull through in the next speech. This means that the 2nd rebuttal speaker NEEDS to get back to their own case for me to weigh it and the summary speakers need to cover everything that their partner is going to close for or I won’t flow it. However, if your opponent doesn’t point out your drop and you repack it up then consider yourself extremely lucky. I will flow it again because drops need to be pointed out in the round for me to weigh them.

Speed:

I can handle rapid conversational just fine as long as you are speaking clearly and sign posting, sign posting, SIGN POSTING!!

Time:

I love a good, BRIEF off the clock road map. They are my favorite thing tbh.

For calling for cards I typically won’t take prep unless a team takes the card back to their area or it starts taking to long to find or read the card. Please don’t take advantage of this. I will expect the other team members not to prep during this time and will dock speaker points if you try to steal prep or if this takes too long.

Cross:

Please just be nice and respectful. I understand being fired up in the heat of the moment but there is a difference between being assertive and being disrespectful. I typically won’t vote on respect unless it is a MAJOR issue, but I will take speaker points away and give a low-point win.

LD/Policy:

I have very little experience here so if I am in the back of your round I am sorry, but I will try my best. I will be flow over anything and can handle a rapid conversational as long as there is signposting, but maybe go a little slower at first to ease me in :)

IEs:

You shouldn’t have to conform your speech style for judges, but I did do domestic extemp for four years so I have the most experience there. Admittedly, I didn’t sit through a single inform or oratory round in my four years of high school, but I do enjoy them. If you make me laugh I will give an extra speaker point :)

As an LD judge, I am very pragmatic. Philosophy impacts the way I may view certain issues but to me, your position must be able to live and brief in the real world. I believe your value must be upheld by your issue contentions, and not just 'tacked on' to have a value. To me, your criteria is part of your analysis. It doesn't have to evaluate both side but help me evaluate and understand your case. I'm not opposed to subsuming a criteria (or value) and using it to your advantage but it is not required. Also, criteria usually doesn't factor much in my decision. My focus is on whether you prove the resolution true (if you're affirmative) or false (if you're negative) and whether there is value in voting for that position. Finally, to me, this is a communication activity so too much speed is not appreciated. While I'll do my best with speed, you jeopardize your persuasion and my ability to flow you. Signposting to help with flowing is also appreciated.

1. Debate background:

1. Judged High school debate for (9 years);
2. Assistant debate coach for 2 years.

2. Judging:

• I love flow and base my judgment on logical arguments, facts, science, etc.
• I deliberate on overall presentation of debaters-- i.e.-- argumentation + delivery

I'm an assistant interp coach for the Huron Speech and Debate team. My primary area of experience is in the interps and speech after having competed for Huron in the past. I am comfortable judging any speech round, and I most closely look at the physicality of a piece (how are you using body language, facial/vocal expression, pops, etc. to promote the piece).

I have some experience with Public Forum debate and am able to judge it, but I cannot stand debaters that speak at mach speed. It is difficult for me to follow flow when information is presented so fast that the words themselves blend together. I will flow to the best of my ability during the round, but don't expect me to catch everything if you speak like a Policy debater.

Background

I got my bachelor's in Religion and Philosophy from Augustana University (SD) and now I’ve been teaching speech and coaching debate (mainly LD) for Brookings, SD.

Ethics

Coming from the world of philosophy and ethics, I am particularly picky when it comes to respectful debate. Please keep good ethos form the moment you enter the room to the moment you leave.

SPEECH EVENTS

When it comes to Interp. and IEs, it’s all about delivery (and content where appropriate). Make sure your voice is loud and clear, but be careful in humorous / dramatic pieces. Things like laughter, screams, cries, etc. are often done too loud for a small room. I’ll comment on everything from movement, to clarity, to character and everything in between. For pieces that you’ve composed (orig. oratory, extemp., etc.), I’m looking for cohesive structure, good intros/conclusions, and clear main points that follow the purpose of the piece.

DEBATE

Overall:

I am fine judging however fast you feel necessary; however, go faster than conversational speed at your own risk. However fast you go, your presentation should be clear, understandable, and well structured. If I can't hear or understand it, I don't factor it into the debate or my decision.I also love clear and concise voters / clinchers in your final speeches!

Under the consideration of what’s listed below, I’m willing to listen to and judge based on what you deem important so long as it’s clear, relevant, and uses sound reasoning. As far as K’s, I’m open to listening to them; however, I’ve found them relatively ineffective, especially if they are not run well (you need to make sure they still have connection to the resolution).

LD:

This is my bread and butter. With a philosophy background, I’m pretty familiar with just about any philosopher you could throw my way. Particularly with the more popular philosophers, make sure you know how the philosophy you’re using works. If you don’t, it will show.

When it comes to how I judge a round, LD is a value debate and I think this should be the main focus. Your contentions should be purely to support your framework, not the only focus of the debate (it’s not PF).

PF:

I feel evidence plays a bigger role in PF than in LD, so I’m far more interested in hearing evidence-based reasoning in round. Just like LD, outside of this, I’m willing to judge what you, your partner, and the other team focus on throughout the round, just keep it clear and structured.

If you want to do speech drop/email chain that's fine I guess. My email is katie.jacobs@k12.sd.us

Most importantly, HAVE FUN!!

Email: livvyjo11103@gmail.com (put me on the email chain, and feel free to message me post round)

About me: Olivia She/her (20) I am currently an individual events coach at Sioux Falls Jefferson! I attend USD online and work in marketing.

TLDR:

Debate is hard, please have fun and after the round, shake it off and never let a down bother you!!

PLAY NICE. There is nothing worse than a round where I as a judge feel flustered because of how the debaters are treating their opponents. I will comment on this, and I will give you lower speaks because of this.

I do not do time signals, do not ask. (Debate)

I prefer if you have time on your own (I tend to forget), but once my timer goes off, your time is done, please do not argue with me about how much prep you have.

During your opponent's speech, please refrain from talking, and listen to what they have to say, even if it is the last speech. They are valid and deserve to be heard as much as you do

My debate career:

I graduated from Central High school in 2022 and was a member of the debate team for all four years of high school. I did policy, pf, oratory, and info - went to nationals 3 times.

PREFERENCES:

I tend to lean more tech over truth - and I am very open to experimental debate, within reason. Just ask before the round or let me know if you wanna do something crazy. That being said, i will vote truth over tech, if there is literally no warrant or link to the debate/evidence.

QUALS AND STATE: (This is for debate only)

Lay it out for me. If I do not understand your argument I will not vote for it. Ks and Theory, are okay - just make sure they connect back. If you want to try something new, please go for it.

As always, be nice and play by the rules.

- EVIDENCE SHARING: This shouldn't take long, as we have some long days ahead - or it's the end of a super long day for all of us. It's cool if you just set up an email chain or something to make the process go faster. (but of course, add me in)

- EVIDENCE VIOLATIONS: I am ALL for the educational level of debate. If something is not true, please say something as I will not catch it like you do - because I am less experienced in the topic, and do not have the card in front of me. I will look at all cards brought to me, but I will not ask if you do not say anything.

Public Forum:

I am okay with speed, I understand the lingo. Keep things on the flow, if you drop something and do not address it, I no longer consider it an argument. I am good at following the flow. - That being said, please stay organized, it's easier for everyone to understand when you follow the order of contentions and arguments that are set up during the first few speeches.

Keep a good roadmap throughout the whole round and TELL me what I should vote for. Believe in what you are saying and why you win. Carry your arguments all the way through, if you drop something, tell me why, do not ignore it. With this - if you drop something you are not allowed to pick it back up. Consider it on the floor and I can't see it - do not bring it up in the final speech.

Please refrain from using abstract arguments such as Ks, Critiques, and CPs in South Dakota main season, UNLESS you are able to prove exactly how this relates to the resolution and your contentions. Experimental debate is only fun if it makes sense and works within the round. I debated policy for the majority of my debate career (being in the final policy round EVER in SD) so if you use them, I will know what you are talking about - your opponent may not so explain exactly what you mean. (CPs are very controversial in PF, I would strongly avoid these if you don't wanna talk about it for the duration of every speech and get debated on topicality and resolutional analysis)

LD:

I have only judged LD, last year being my introduction. With this, I am someone who, like PF will judge based on your clash. Believe in what you are debating, even if it is not your own personal belief outside of the round. If you do not care about what you are saying I will pick up on it, and stop listening.

I tend to lean towards a criterion and value debate as my main voter (any framework actually), as it’s there for a reason. You drop your criterion, you lose. You don’t uphold your value, you lose.

CIRCUIT:

Do not be abusive to your opponent. No disclosure theory if I am in the back, please. You can run theory, you just have to explain why it pertains to the text, and are able to back it up.

Speechdrop and email chains, make it quick. I am not spending 20 minutes trying to set it up when you did not come prepared. Have a print-off of your case as backup.

Ks, CPs, and DAs: Make sure you are explaining these in order of event - like if you have 2 DAs that are triggered by something, or solved by the CP, make sure they make sense to me. Explain if your opponent does not know what you're talking about, as not everyone normally debates circuits, on the traditional level these do not exist. Be courteous.

Spreading: IDC if you spread (I'm an 8/10 on speed) - slow down on tags and cards so I can follow. Please share your speech doc with me if you spread it so I can look back if I need to. I used to spread myself and know how to do it in a nice way.

SPEECHES:

If you are checking my paradigm before an IE round, I am so sorry that you think that you should be judged based on someone's preferences on content. Be confident, and I really hope that you love what you are telling me. I think IEs are unique and cannot be based on my personal preferences and biases. You will do great, I promise!! <3

DO NOT ASK ME TO READ MY PARADIGM FOR YOU.

I WILL get the ick for any arguments that are racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, discriminatory, and generally anything else you think I would get upset with. I do not tolerate hate in a progressive environment and I will not stand for any of it. Please do not say these things, I will stop listening and will contact your coach.

Emerson Keeley

she/they

University of South Dakota

General

Hey there! My name is Emerson Keeley but, I also go by Emma. I graduated from Aberdeen Central in 2021. I only did debate for 1 year so I don't know much so please correct me if I do anything wrong. I am open to learning from my mistakes. I did show choir throughout high school, so I am WAY out of my zone. I currently attend USD, studying Psychology with a minor in Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies.

DO NOT say anything out of pocket, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, racist, xenophobic, or anything of the sort. I grew up in South Dakota, it is not fun what some people have to go through, and if you are like that to your opponent or partner, you will be downvoted instantly. I will absolutely not tolerate it!

Go YOTES!

Public Forum

I am most confident in this type of debate. I know most terms but bare with me. I am still fairly new. I know how to keep a decent flow. I am open to learning! I am slowly getting more confident in PuFo.

I will not disclose rounds. If you ask me to disclose, that's .5 of your speaker points.

Make the debate traditional

IE's

I LOVE HUMOR!!! IT IS MY KILLER!!

LD

I am least confident in this type of debate, therefore, I am open to learning!! I will try my best!!

Information

emerson.keeley2003@gmail

Feel free to email me if there is anything you'd like to discuss regarding your round! I would be more than happy to give my input! Just make sure to put what round it and what the topic was since I have the memory of a goldfish :)

To All Debaters:

1) If you have ANY questions, let me know before the round begins!

2) Please be kind during the round. Extreme aggressive questioning, condescension, or even insulting behavior will be marked on my ballot for your coaches to see. It may not affect the end result, but it is important to note.

3) I am an ex-speech kid, but mostly did oratory and info for the time I was in High School. However, I am now a debater in college, so I get the gist.

Public Forum paradigm:

It is hard to convince me unless me unless it is well-justified or the opponent fails to point out the fallacies. In short, I enjoy line-by-line and then impacts at the bottom. I like voters and impacts in final speec

Speed is fine, but dont speak faster than I can understand you. If you're stumbling and aren't succinct, that will not help you.

I don't know what a K is, if you have a K you will have to explain it.

When I look for a win, if you cover all points on a flow, make a strong case for/against a resultion, that is a sure win. A stronger case means that taking all the evidence together that has been introduced and extended throughout the round.

LD:

I did not do LD in high school, but I understand the discussion of value and criterion and philosophy. With that being said, stick to more "traditional" LD arguments since I have never done this before

Value/Criterion do matter more than contention-level, but I expect both to be covered effectively.

Line by line argumentation works for me

same speed as PF

Good luck! You will do outstanding!

Policy Debate: I am more of a games player. To clarify, I see debate as an educational game that is being played. There are basic rules that are established (sides are set, time limits are set, a resolution has been established). I do reject moves that seek to create a completely unfair environment for either side (I can talk about what ever I want because resolutions don't matter attitude). I am good with almost any argument that is grounded in sound theory.

Specific Issues:

Kritiks- I like a good kritik that actually explores what the affirmative/negative is doing in a round, but the team running the kritik must understand what the kritik is actually doing. I do expect every K that is run to have a clear link to the K, implications for me to weigh and an alternative that goes beyond vote for us (in 99% of the K's). If it is an extremely complex concept, don't assume I already know what you are talking about. You will probably need to slow it down a step or two to make sure I am following the logic you are discussing.

Performance Debate: I am not a fan of these concepts. The reason is simple. You showed up for a debate round. You should debate the resolution. What performance debates do in my opinion is come to a Monopoly tournament and dance in the hallway and expect to win the Monopoly tournament. You can't not do the event and expect to win the event.

I am not a fan of the politics DA. The leap in logic of plan causes people to vote in a completely different way just has no theory behind it. I will listen to it, but the threshold for beating the argument is very low.

Concepts like topical counterplans and such are fine, if you can present a clear defense connected to theory that explains why they should be okay.

In the end, I look at the offense that is left on the flow. I prefer teams that go after more offensive style arguments then those playing defense on everything.

On speed, my expectations are that you must be clear enough for me to understand you and the evidence that you read (not just tags). If you are not, then I will not flow it and I will not yell "clear." It is your job to communicate.

Lincoln-Douglas: I am more of a traditionalist. I prefer more focus on the framework in the debate and connecting your observations back to the framework and the resolution. I am not a fan of disads/counterplans/and other traditional policy arguments being run in LD since it ignores the unique distinctions between the two events.

Running of K's- A recommend that you read what I said about it in the policy level and know that this can be a bigger problem because of a lack of time in presenting and defending the K.

Speed is fine, but you must be clear. I need to understand what you are saying. I am more forgiving on the line by line in LD than I am in policy, but you do need to address the main issues and just not ignore them.

Public Forum: Good debate that uses strong evidence throughout to prove your positions. I do not weigh the cross-fires heavily, but I do listen to them and will allow for answers to be used in the debate. You don't have to win every point on the flow, but you need to provide me with clear reasoning why you should win and less about why your opponent should not win. Weigh the round. When citing evidence, make sure that you are not relying on paraphrasing.

World School: Coaching it for the second year. Do not try to define people out of the round. Focus on the stated judging requirements of style (delivery) and content (logical reasoning and appropriate backing). The logical reasoning presented is not the same as strategy. The logical reasoning is content.

LD - The first thing I look at is value/criterion/framework. Framework is how you craft your moral world; your job is to establish your moral world and convince me we must affirm/negate on the basis of your world's moral system. The winning framework is how I judge the round. Example: If the winning framework tells me that absolute freedom is to be valued over human life, then an argument that Neg contributes to a high death toll holds little weight, because human life is not what we're trying to achieve. SO DON'T DROP THE FRAMEWORK DEBATE; pull it through, and explain to me how the contention level matches with and upholds your framework.

PF - I vote for the team that can best uphold their case through analysis and evidence. If you don't tell me WHY something matters, I don't care - give me impacts! Example: I don't care about terrorism unless you tell me why I should care about terrorism, otherwise you're just throwing out a buzz-word. If you provide framework, the arguments for your case AND arguments against your opponent's case should work in the world of your framework - don't contradict yourself.

BQ - Definitions are SO important. In Big Question, the topic is very vague and broad; you need to clearly define your terms and the context in which you are building your arguments. If you debate against your opponent's definition, give me a good reason to believe your definition instead. If the definitions are similar enough or don't impact the round, you do not have to debate them. For voting, I first look to framing (observations, definitions), then evaluate contention level based on framing. I look for logical consistency. I like examples. I like to know the credentials for your sources.

tl;dr: Read what's bolded.

——> Experience <——

He/Him

I debated LD for three years and was top 20 at nats my senior year, as well as state runner-up. I've worked debate camps 2020-2023, and am Sioux Falls Washington’s assistant LD coach!

Also feel free to ask me before the round about anything I might have left out from this. I tried to include as much info as possible.

——> Public Forum <——

Sometimes I get thrown into PF and I seriously question why. I prefer line-by-line analysis with smart analytics rather than you trying to dumb down your opponent's argument and then refuting a strawman. Go after their links, reduce the harm of their impacts, and outweigh.

——> Any Speech Event <——

I spent my debate career weaseling my way out of doing IE’s. I don’t have a TON of formal experience with it but I was the opening attorney for mock trial and I’ve done a decent amount of public speaking, so I know enough about what makes a good speech to follow along, but don’t have high hopes when it comes to technical feedback.

——> LD <——

tech > truth, generally. But if something is clearly counterintuitive and blatantly false you can probably wipe it off my flow by just telling me “this is clearly counterintuitive and blatantly false” with like an extra sentence of analysis.

Even though I can certainly handle flowing a bunch of responses down, and I understand the strategic appeal of doing so, I think I fall more on the side of leveling 1-3 responses to a contention rather than, say, five. Three responses to EVERYTHING that your opponent says is also probably pushing it. I like a clear thesis with a strong narrative you pull through for me. Tell me a story of why I should vote for you and make your advocacy cohesive. This is always much more compelling than throwing the entire kitchen sink at your opponent.

I keep a rigorous flow, but understand that speaking skills are still an important persuasive element to highlight key points to me. If you start emphasizing something in rebuttal as very important I'll normally circle or star it, so it's in your best interest to have inflection. Also, what the heck is up with y'all extending a key drop in rebuttal but then never leveraging it? I've heard so many rebuttals start with something like pointing out that their observation went dropped, but then that's the last time I ever hear about it.

My eyes are normally glued to my flow during the round, so don't be offended if I don't look at you while speaking. In fact, If I look at you that's probably a bad sign because it means I don't feel like I have anything to flow. If you see me nodding along to something you say that means I thought of an argument and then you went on to say what I was thinking. If you do that then congrats, I think you're smart.

Yes, "solvency isn't a burden in LD" is an unwarranted claim, and the idea that no moral theory requires you to at least somewhat decrease the issue seems silly to me. The only thing that determines for me whether solvency matters is going to be the framing. I've seen too many rounds where someone runs util but then tries to get out of showing how they actually solve for their impacts. If your framework/criterion has anything to do with "reducing X", "minimizing Y", or "maximizing Z" then congrats you conceded to having the burden of solvency. NOTE: this does not mean "100% solvency", but rather I need you to show a mitigation of the harms.

On that note, if you like leveraging framework, then I'm your guy. If you like running deliberately vague/borderline abusive frameworks, then I am NOT your guy! Please don’t try and hide the ball about how things should be evaluated. It confuses your opponent and it confuses me. You can run in-depth philosophy without being asinine about it. Want to spend 2+ minutes alone on framework? Let's do it! But it better have strategic value! I'll listen to whatever you want to throw at me (so long as it doesn't create a hostile environment), just explain it clearly. On this note, I am of the opinion that Y'ALL ARE TOO SCARED TO RUN FUN FRAMEWORKS!! I am getting seriously tired of evaluating justice frameworks 24/7. If you ever want to run something but feel as if judges will reject it, use me as your guinea pig!

You don’t need to win your framework to win the round, you just need to win one of the frameworks and tell me why you win under it. My first step towards evaluating the round is deciding what framework to use. The more messy the round gets the more likely I will be forced to intervene and the more likely you will be upset with my decision. That being said, if you drop framework you're basically dead in the water for me. I find myself most convinced to buy someone's framework when they warrant it well and when attacking their opponent they do more than just read generics, but discuss specifically why the flaws in their opponent's framework expose the strength of their own.

Warrants matter more than cards. Markley '23 does not matter if it's not warranted (that being said though, you should run Markley '23 :)), and an analytic with warrants will easily refute any unwarranted card for me. If you cite a stat and when asked for an explanation, you just say "IDK that's what the study says" that's probably bad. If you're citing something you should know the reasoning behind it. Also: weigh, Weigh, WEIGH!!!

I will not immediately reject Kritiks and CPs. I used to be adamantly against them but have changed my mind in the past year. The burden of the negative is to disprove the affirmative. If they can show that there is a separate moral obligation to pursue some other, mutually exclusive action, or that the fundamental logic/reasoning of the aff is flawed then that is a reason to negate. Therefore, I don't think either are abusive in an LD setting and if anything it's probably bad for fairness on certain topics if the neg just isn't allowed to provide some sort of alt to the aff. That being said, I'm not biased in favor of them or prejudiced against trad. Some of my favorite rounds I've ever watched have been super traditional, but it is in your best interest to level arguments against Kritiks and CPs more than "this shouldn't be in LD" without warrants.

That being said, if you're going to run a K INCLUDE ALL PARTS OF THE K!! The most ineffective K's I see in trad circuit are the ones that try to disguise it by making it wear a trench coat and sunglasses. Run a K, be clear that it's a K, and do a quick Google search for a video explaining how a K functions (The NSDA also has a free course on Kritiks that shouldn't take you too long)

I used to say at this point that I like topicality debates. I take that back. I expect to be in physical pain on this topic if y'all start to quibble about what countries are in the WANA region. Update: I was right! These debates do nothing but give me a headache.

Please line-by-line and signpost.

——> General Information <——

I'm incredibly passionate about making Debate inclusive and accessible. Be respectful to your opponent and don't use marginalized communities as props to get a W. There's a big difference between actually advocating for groups and just flippantly talking about the issues they face to get a point on the flow. Also be cognizant of the types of arguments you decide to run, and if you might end up alienating members of the community. Was not fun seeing friends get uncomfortable during the open borders topic.

I'm pretty tolerant of arguments brought up in round but don't bring anything homophobic, racist, xenophobic, etc. into the round. Please also provide a content warning before you read case if you are touching on sensitive subjects, and accommodate as necessary.

Verbally insulting your opponent will definitely tank speaks and is grounds for an auto-loss. Be good people.

~Insert generic statement about how while all judges have their biases, I try my best to limit it when making decisions.~

——> Evidence <——

Please be transparent with evidence. It's genuinely a pet peeve of mine if authors are cited out of context or are misrepresented. If I found out you're misrepresenting a card then it's getting thrown off of my flow, I won't consider it in the round, and your speaks are going to be at the bottom of the Mariana Trench. Too many successful debaters can attribute their success to their ability to conceal evidence violations, which is bad for this activity. That being said I won't call for a card unless explicitly told to. If you want me to read one of your opponent's cards, tell me to call it and explain why I should.

Yeah paraphrasing is probably bad for evidence ethics but my standard above applies, I just encourage y'all to exercise strict scrutiny if your opponent starts paraphrasing.

I will start to run prep for calling a card once you can actually see the card, your opponent taking time to pull it up will not affect you.

Please don't tell me to extend a specific author. Tell me the argument/subpoint you want extended. If I write down your author it's so I can look it up later and steal it for the team I coach (Go Warriors).

——> Speed <——

I can handle speed but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm a fan of it. you won't get voted down for going fast but just know I prefer that you make a 2-3 strong and well-explained refutations to one contention rather than blitzing out seven arguments with no warrant behind them. That being said if I can't hear it, I can't flow it and any extensions will not matter to me.

I am a rhetoric coach, so I look for strong structure and clear arguments. Speed will not win you any points with me. This is a public address activity. Your arguments need to be understandable and substantiated. I will consider framework, but I will not vote solely on it. Make sure that you understand what your evidence is saying.

I am a former South Dakota debater who competed in PFo, oratory, and interp. I’m now the head debate coach at Mitchell High School. I’m a traditional Public Forumer; this event was created for lay judges and heavy Public Forum jargon should be left to the side.

- This isn’t policy. Slow down and give me a quality delivery for higher speaks. Throwing delivery by the wayside for a fast and robotic presentation is a massive mistake so many debaters commit. I’m an Aristotle girlie - persuade me with your ethos, logos, and pathos!

- I'll be closely following the arguments presented, and if you believe there's a pivotal point crucial for winning the round, please ensure to address it in one of your subsequent speeches.

- Please time yourself in speeches. I'll keep track of prep, but I encourage you to do so as well. If you call for a card your prep starts once you start reading the card.

- Direct quotes > Paraphrasing. I won't immediately downvote you for paraphrasing, but if your debate opponent can provide a compelling reason, I might reconsider. The same principle applies to the misuse of evidence. If your opponent requests a card citation, and it contradicts your argument or the way you presented it, it could be deemed abusive, potentially leading to a loss in the round.

- Creativity in arguments is encouraged, as long as you have the link chain to back it up. Using abusively creative arguments is not my favorite (ie., student loan debt forgiveness will lead to nuclear war.)

- Weighing metrics are SO IMPORTANT! Even if it seems obvious to you, lay it all out for me so you ensure it gets weighed how you see fit.

- Summaries should not be utilized as second rebuttals; use your summary for voters and to tell me why I’m preferring you on each flowed contention.

- Be assertive, not aggressive! I’m such a firm believer of “If you have to be mean to get your point across, you’re a bad debater.” Aggressiveness will cost you speaker points.

- I have come to despise off-the-clock roadmaps and asking if every individual in the round is ready; you can begin and we’ll catch up.

- Telling me what I’m going to be voting is such a pet peeve of mine. Tell me what to weigh, what to prefer, what to analyze, what to flow through - do NOT tell me what I’m going to vote. :)

For policy debate, I am primarily a stock issues judge, though topicality is very difficult to win from me. I am open to counterplans, etc..., and I will basically judge whatever happens in the round. Thus, "stock issues" may be what I prefer, but I judge the round based on the arguments presented and the refutations of those arguments.

For public forum, I prefer direct clash-- actually refute the opponents case with your own case. I think favorably on cross-applying arguments from your case to the opponent's case. Importantly, follow the flow and do not cast it aside once the 2 minute speeches started-- you spent time developing those cases and arguments, so see them through in the summaries and final focus speeches.

For speech events, I follow the basic rules of each event. In drama, humorous, and related, I like to see clean transitions, clear and distinct characters, etc... In extemp, I like to know why the topic is important (why ask this question?), clear citations and warrants, and a speech that follows a logical line of analysis to its conclusion(s). In oratory and similar, clear logic (organization, thought process-- whatever is relevant to the topic and nature of the event) and a speech pattern that doesn't sound too memorized-- the speech should flow just as naturally as a conversation.

Policy

I still believe debate is a communication event. I do not like rounds consisting of throwing as much as humanly possible at the proverbial wall and hoping that something will stick. Debaters should focus on well-reasoned arguments that actually apply to the case being debated. If I can't understand what is being debated because of speed or because it isn't clearly explained, I will not consider it in my decision. I do not prefer kritiks or other random theory arguments. I will vote as a stock issues or policy maker judge.

LD

I am a traditional LD judge. I like to hear a value and contentions that apply to the value and the resolution. Communication is important to me. Debaters should weigh arguments and tell me why they should win the round.

Public Forum

Debaters should communicate and run arguments that clash with those of the other team. I flow arguments and do consider drops, but debaters need to point out which issues are most important. The final focus for each team should be where the debaters frame the round and tell me why I should vote for them. I expect debaters to be polite.

Hello debaters,

I approach debate with a focus on substance and argumentation, emphasizing the importance of clear communication and effective case development. Here are key aspects of my judging philosophy:

1. Flow-Centric Evaluation:

   • I prioritize the flow as the primary tool for decision-making.
   • Debaters should clearly articulate and extend arguments throughout the round.
   • I appreciate organization and signposting to enhance the flow.

2. Impacts Matter:

   • I give weight to well-developed impacts that are linked to the resolution.
   • Impact calculus is crucial. Clearly explain why your impacts outweigh those presented by your opponent.

3. Technical Proficiency:

   • I value technical proficiency in debate. Solid understanding of debate theory and effective cross-examination will be rewarded.
   • However, I do not automatically vote on theory. Make sure to connect theoretical arguments to tangible impacts on the round.

4. Clarity and Signposting:

   • Clear, concise, and organized speeches are key. Clarity in communication helps me understand your arguments better.
   • Signpost consistently to help me follow your line of argumentation.

5. Adaptability:

   • I appreciate debaters who can adapt their strategy based on the flow of the round.
   • Flexibility in argumentation and the ability to adjust to your opponent's arguments will be recognized.

6. Framework and Weighing:

   • Framework is essential for framing the round, but it should be applied in a way that enhances substantive clash.
   • Effective weighing of impacts is crucial. Explain why your impacts are more significant in the context of the round.

7. Disinclination towards Theory Arguments:

   • I am not a fan of theory arguments. While I expect debaters to engage in substantive clash, relying heavily on theory arguments may not be as persuasive to me.

8. Respect and Sportsmanship:

   • Maintain a respectful and professional demeanor throughout the round.
   • I don't tolerate any form of discrimination or offensive language. Such behavior will have a negative impact on your speaker points.

9. Evidence Quality:

   • Quality over quantity. Well-analyzed and relevant evidence will carry more weight than a flood of less meaningful sources.
   • Reference your evidence appropriately and be prepared to defend its relevance.

Remember, this paradigm is a guide, and I am open to various debating styles and arguments. Adapt your approach to these guidelines, and feel free to ask for clarification on any specific preferences before the round begins.

Hi guys! My name is Zoe and I’m a former debater whose done her fair share of events. During high school, I competed in oratory and informative for my IE’s as well as public forum for 3 years and Lincoln Douglas my senior year, and I competed at the 2021 Nationals in Student Congress.

Debate in General: This can be a stressful activity and things can get heated in rounds, but I am not ok with disrespectfulness, rudeness, or other uncalled-for behaviors. In a debate round, I ask that you signpost well to keep the flow clean and allow me to catch everything you are saying and want me to know. If I can’t flow it, I can’t vote for it. I will time prep and speeches, but you are free to do so as well on your own and I encourage it as well so there is no need to ask if I am ok with it. :)

Pufo: This is an event to be understood by a person who has absolutely no clue what you are talking about and should be treated as such. I will listen to whatever you are telling me, but if I can’t understand it without prior knowledge it won’t hold any weight if you can’t make it make sense. If you run framework please, please, please debate it. It shouldn’t be something that just sits at the top of your case and doesn’t do anything else, if that’s the case I won’t vote for it. Again keep the flow as clean as possible, sign post, sign post, sign post. If you tell me where in the flow you are I can meet you there and listen to what you are saying better, it works out better for all of us in the end. And in your final focus I want to hear voters. Tell me why you win, and why your opponent doesn’t. My decision at the end of the round should only be challenging because both teams used voters and made it hard to choose the winner.

LD: I don’t/won’t normally vote for a winner because of value criterion debate over contention level and vice versa. I will listen to anything and everything openly but make it make sense. You’re value should make sense in the context of your case and your criterion should uphold it and your contentions should fit within it that framework you have laid out for me. If you run something wild and out there in your contention level please link it back to your framework so everyone knows what is going on, but to also make sure your case as a whole makes sense, if your contention doesn’t uphold your framework that won’t work very well for you in the end. Again please signpost for everything. Use voters at the end so I can see what you want me to weigh at the end of the round and why you think you should win, but keep it simple, 3 or 4 max will do the trick if you have too many it just becomes a list and I don’t have a concise grouping to make my choice.

Speech: In a speech round I’m looking for you to be passionate about you’re topic and really show me that you love it and care about what you’re telling me, make me believe it. I also ask that you pay attention to your peers and what they have to say. You can learn some amazing things from the others in the room. But also they have put in just as much time and hard work as you have and deserve the opportunity to be heard.

Ann Tornberg has been a Debate coach for 35 years. She has coached Policy, Lincoln Douglas, and Public Forum in addition to coaching Speech and Oral Interp.

"I want to be persuaded in LD. I want to be able to evaluate the evidence based on a strong, reasonably paced delivery. Do not speed read in LD if you want high speaker points. As you summarize make sure that you are referring to evidence that has been read in the round. I do my best to take a careful flow. Give direction to your argument and always signpost. Let me know where I should put your argument on my flow. Finally, give me your estimate of the primary VOTERS in the round, but don't be surprised if I find other issues that are just as important to my decision." Ann Tornberg

I am a public forum judge...not policy. Organization and presentation are the keys to a winning round. Fast speaking will get you nowhere; and may cost you a round if the round is close.

Fancy jargon will not gain you any points, nor will nasty crossfires. I appreciate common sense, professionalism, and good grammar!

Just debate the resolution; be organized; have a good time; good luck.

LD--I value organization, common sense, and good speaking skills. Please don't try to baffle me with lots of jargon. Super-fast speaking may cost you the round. You will be judged on your case, attitude, and clarity of thought. Please don't spend the entire round debating value/criterion/framework or philosophy; your contentions count too!

Hello debaters! My name is Amelia Underberg and my pronouns are she/her. I debated in high school for 3 years and have tried my fair share of speech events as well. If you have any questions for me, feel free to ask before or after round.

Public Forum:

For me public forum can get hard to weigh. Please do not sit and debate about one or two cards the whole time. Show me the impact!! I need reasons as to why your side outweighs in the round.

Lincoln Douglass:

I love a good framework debate. If you do not uphold your framework, you cannot really win the round unless both sides cannot. Contention levels are important to me for impact, but still pull your framing through the round please!

Speech Events:

Just have fun and be respectful please! I will vote on who I think is the best speaker and does the best on their topic/form of event!

General:

For the love of God, have fun guys! Debate is a fun and unique activity that you can be a part of, so enjoy it. Do not be rude or snippy. And treat your fellow competitors with respect. Remember that the point is to learn something and be a part of something larger than just one round :)

I am the head speech and debate coach for Tea Area. I’ve competed at both the high school and collegiate level and have coached since 2019.

Clear, organized communication impresses me over jargon. Talk at a speed that you feel comfortable, but do not sacrifice comprehensibility. If I cannot understand your speech, I cannot vote on your points. I value professionalism throughout the entire round—in crossfire especially. I flow arguments and do factor dropped arguments into my decision; however, debaters should clearly weigh their arguments, showing what is the most important, and tell me why they win the round.

Hello:)

I debated LD in South Dakota for 3 years. I am not the fastest writer so I would give speed preference to be like a 6/10. Due to debating purely in traditional circuit, I will judge more traditionally.

I like to see emphasis on framework and a clear link to contentions. I don't think you necessarily have to win your framework, but at least one of the frameworks provided within the round. Additionally, you could lose both frameworks and still win (ie very muddled framework on both sides, or all framework was dropped), I will usually default to winning framework though. I really dislike how policy is kind of pushing its way into LD so please try to avoid that. That being said, I'm not the biggest fan of Ks or counterplans but I am willing to hear them. Also, I think that a few well-thought-out arguments are much better than a lot of short non-cohesive ones (again slow writer).

Don't be rude, racist, misogynistic, homophobic, etc. Not only will I lower your speaks, I will probs vote you down and call your mom. I think debate is meant to be fun and educational, neither of which can happen if issues like this occur.

For prep, I will call 30 second increments and I do count reading/calling cards in prep.

PLEASE do not bring up new arguments or cards in the 2AR. I will not flow them, so save your time for more important things. I don't think it's fair if your opponent cannot respond, so don't make the arguments in the first place.

If you can make a joke about konda and it works well within the speech I will give you an automatic +1 speaks:)

If you have any questions feel free to ask me before round or you can email me at haley.weber@coyotes.usd.edu

Good luck and have fun!

PS: if i happen to judge you for a pf round good luck and godspeed.

I have two rules for when I judge:

1) If you are going to use analytics, either use evidence to back it up, or make it seem like you know what you're talking about. Don't just use analytics to attack your opponent's case.

2) Don't piss me off. If you do, I will not be inclined to favor you in the round.

Now that those are out of way, here's the rest.

Introduction

I did debate for four years: one in policy as a freshman, and the next three in Public Forum. After that, I've been judging from 2017 onward, taking a break in 2020. I'm primarily a public forum judge, but I have judged LD and policy in the past. If you have me as an LD judge, know that I won't follow anything special that you may try to run, such as a role of the ballot argument. Keep it to Value/Criterion, and the round will be a lot better as a whole.

Definitions/Framework

For definitions, only define stuff that you think is necessary. This doesn't mean define the word "harm" in an "on balance" resolution, but if there's a word that you think a lay judge might not understand, such as "urbanization," that might be one to define. On framework, keep it short and simple. Framework should be something by which I judge the round, not one of the voters. Don't spend so much time on it that you have to cut the rest of your case short. 10-20 seconds max.

Speakers

Case - use as much of your time as possible without going over. Make sure that you have enough time to get through all of your points and recount your main points. Also, if you have a one point case with multiple subpoints, just why? At that point, just have the point as framework and the subpoints as the main points.

Rebuttal - first, don't use a prewritten rebuttal speech. That just tells me that you're unprepared for other people's arguments and that you're not confident in your own attacks. Second, make sure you actually attack your opponent's arguments. If you just attack the general (insert opponent's side here) case, and you don't link your attacks to anything, that's not going to help you. Make sure you are linking your attacks to something your opponent said, otherwise it's going on the flow, but it'll have very little weight.

Crossfire - don't speak over your opponent, refer to Rule #2. Rounds usually aren't won here, and they're more for you than me, so just don't be a dick and you'll be fine.

Summary - start to condense the round here. This doesn't mean continue attacking your opponent's case if you couldn't get to it in Rebuttal, this means get your arguments together and start explaining to me why you think you've won the round. If that means just restating your point titles, go for it, but explain in your own words why you think you've won these arguments. Don't just repeat verbatim what's on the cards. I've heard that, but why does that matter in the grand scheme of the round? Tell me that, and I'll listen.

Final Focus - give me why you won the round. I don't want to hear a continuation of the round. I want to hear 2-3 convincing arguments as to why you have the arguments necessary for me to vote you up. If you don't tell me what is most important, and the other team does, I will be more inclined to vote for them because they told me why they won.

Speed

Given that I'm still relatively young, I can pick up most things, but when you start reading at Policy speeds in a Public Forum round, that's when I put my pen down/stop typing and just stare at you. If I don't flow something, that usually means you stumbled over it or sped through it, which means I don't judge it at the end of the round. If you want to speed through the card, that's fine, but if you speed right through the tag, I won't be using it in my decision, which will inevitably hurt you in the long run.

Other

Reactions - try to keep a poker face when in rounds. This is especially visible in online rounds where I can just look slightly to the side of my screen and see you making a face at whatever your opponent just said.

Timer - when the timer goes off, you can finish your sentence, and that's where my attention span ends. I will leave my timer going off until you stop speaking, however long that takes. Hopefully, it shouldn't take too long. If the timer goes off after a question has been fully asked in Crossfire, you are allowed to give a short answer to the question, but don't go off on a long winded tangent on whatever you're talking about. If you're in the middle of a question, Crossfire is unfortunately over.

Be Professional - while I have given some debaters lower speaker points due to breaking Rule #2 as seen above, I have yet to decide a round based on that alone. If that does occur, I still find an objective reason in the round to explain why they lost, not just that they pissed me off. So while it hasn't happened yet, don't let your emotions make you the first round that it happens.

Prep/Called Cards - if you call for a card during crossfire, I will not start prep time so long as no prep work is being done on either side while the card/article is being looked at.

Questions

If you have any questions on decisions, any comments that I made, feel free to contact me at wilsonbc@midco.net. Try to let me know what round I had you in and what the topic was, as I have a reputation for not having the best memory.