Hi Friends and Future Friends,

My name is Elle (like the letter "L")! I was a former intercollegiate debater and competed in multiple events, including BP, IMP, IPDA, NPDA, and Ethics Bowl. I am an extremely fair judge. I do not vote according to personal basis, nor do I let any political leanings interfere with my ability to view the scope of a round. I have a Bachelor's degree in Political Science and a second BA in Philosophy. I share my educational background because I believe that it has trained me to indulge in (and even enjoy) hearing alternative perspectives/arguments. It has also edified me to decipher between sound argumentation and utter humbug.

When judging a debate round I flow meticulously, actively listening and observing both teams. I vote according to the arguments presented to me. How these arguments are presented is up to the debaters. I will entertain a wide range of approaches to a given resolution. I enjoy debate rounds of all types; running a topicality argument or Kritik will not lose my vote. I often get asked about my preference regarding "speed": talk as fast as you like; I can flow it. With that said, speaking quickly is a strategy– acknowledge that if your judge misses an argument you said, that's a risk of the strategy you chose. I expect stock issues addressed, I do consider impacts as significant, and I will flow dropped arguments. Each round is unique, and different issues arise. Therefore, I hesitate to say that there is this "one thing" that determines how I vote in each round [I don't think I would be a fair judge if I could name just one thing].

The one thing you should note about me: I do not tolerate disrespect during, before, or after a debate round. If you are disrespectful to another debater I will vote you down. I have done it before (unfortunately) and will do it again if need be. I have voted teams down before for being overtly disrespectful to either a debater on the opposing team or (and yes, this has actually happened) a debater on their team. I don't mind us having fun and being snarky. I genuinely care about each of you enough individually to hold you all accountable for being respectful collectively.

BELOW IS AN UPDATED JUDGING PARADIGM:

JUDGE PARADIGM

Elle Baez

EXPERIENCE

As an intercollegiate debater at Point Loma Nazarene University and Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, I competed in multiple events: NPDA, IPDA, LD, Ethics Bowl, Impromptu, and more. I have over 8 years experience debating, coaching, and judging a large variety of speech and debate events at both a college and high school level. Additionally, I am associated with the National Speech & Debate Association and am trained in Culturally Competent Judging. Lastly, while holding two Bachelor's degrees in Political Science and Philosophy, I am currently a graduate student studying Philosophy at The New School for Social Research and a visiting scholar at Wesleyan University.

PRINCIPLES

The five principles listed below guide judging paradigm:

1. Impartiality

2. Active Listening

3. Open-Mindedness

4. Encouragement

5. Constructive Feedback

RFD

The round is won through the clear delivery of sound arguments. If both arguments hold equal validity, I will differ to the following to make a decision:

1. Warrants: Evidence that is well sourced and supports the argument being made.

2. Voters: Conclude with the reason why I should vote in your favor.

3. Delivery: Clear delivery and speaking skills.

4. Validity: The argument is both sound and premises are valid.

5. Etiquette: In the event that a debater has acted inappropriately or respectfully towards another, I will heavily factor etiquette into my decision making.

FEEDBACK

I treat constructive feedback as highly significant and essential to the learning process. I am known to give robust feedback and open myself up after round to discuss questions debaters may have. During the round I am taking detailed notes and keeping a tight flow. I believe active notetaking is essential to providing constructive feedback to all debaters in the round. Often, when writing my RFD I will offer alternative ways to strengthen an argument that failed during a round, rebuttals that could have been utilized, or anything else I noticed that can help the debaters be successful in future rounds.

PREFERENCES

1. Sound Argumentation & Style: I will naturally value a round based on sound argumentation. Although, both style (delivery) and argument are important elements. Therefore, I will consider both before making a decision.

2. Speeding: In regards to speeding, I am to keep a tight flow. However, “speeding” is a strategy. The risk of this strategy is that an argument can be missed by the judge. If a debater uses this strategy they accept this risk.

3. Kritik: I enjoy creative debate arguments and can be persuaded by a well delivered kritik or T.

4. Cross-Examination: Typically, if applicable, I will write this down in the flow and potentially consider it if it has contextual importance in the round.

5. Voting Issues: Stating the key points and weighing mechanisms in the debate is critical and directs the judge’s to pay attention to these arguments when making a decision.

ETIQUETTE

In regards to in-round etiquette, I expect that all debaters treat all persons with respect. I deeply believe that the central purpose of debate is education. I do not believe that a pedagogical environment is possible without respectful interaction and conduct. Therefore, I do not reward debaters that act disrespectfully. I have a zero tolerance policy for bullying, and will intervene as if necessary because I believe it is my duty as a judge to protect all debaters.

conflicts: groves high school (class of 2019), wayne state university (class of 2023, secondary ed major w/ minors in public health & gender, sexuality, and women's studies), detroit country day high school

always put me on the email chain! Literally always! if you ask i will assume you haven't read this! legit always put me on the email chain! lukebagdondebate@gmail.com

pronouns: they/them.

the abridged version:

• do you, and do it well

• don't cheat in ways that require me to intervene

• don't misgender me, or your competitors

• do not assume i am going to vote for you because you say my name a lot

some general stuff:

the more and more i do debate the less i care about what's put in front of me. when i first started debating, i cared very deeply about norms, the resolution, all that jazz. now, if you're willing to read it i'm willing to judge it. i'd rather see an in depth debate with a lot of offense and clash than anything else, and i don't care whether you do that on a T flow vs. a k aff or a cap flow vs. a policy aff.

my least favorite word in the english language (of which is not a slur) is the word "basically." i would rather listen to everyone for the rest of time describe everything as "moist" than listen to you say the word "basically." i've hated this word for years, do not use it. make of that what you will.

it should be said i at one point read a parody aff that involved my partner and i roleplaying as doctor/patient during the 1ac. i care exceedingly little what you want to do with your 8 minute constructive, 3 minute cx, and 5 minute rebuttals - but those speech times are non-negotiable (unless the tournament says otherwise). play a game, eat a salad, ask me about my cat(s), color a picture, read some evidence; but do it within the constraint of a timer.

(this "time fetish" is less of a "respect my time" thing and more of a "i need to know when i can tell tab who i voted for" thing. i take a lot of pride in getting my decision in before repko, and i wish to continue that streak.)

stuff about me as a judge:

i do not follow along in the speech doc. i try not to look at cards. be clear, be concise, be cool. debate is first and foremost a communicative activity. i will only read y'alls ev if there is serious contention, or you tell me to. i HATE DOING THIS, and this very often does not go how people think it will.

if you say "insert re-highlighting" instead of reading the re-highlighting i WILL consider that argument uncarded

bolded for emphasis: people are also saying they can 'insert a caselist' for T flows. this is not a thing. and i will not consider them part of the debate if this occurs.

i do not play poker both because i am terrible at math and because i have a hard time concealing my emotions. i do have pretty bad rbf, but i still think you should look at me to tell what i'm thinking of your speeches/cx.

speaker points:

Misgendering is bad and a voting issue (at the very least I will give you exceptionally low speaks). due to my gender identity i am hyper aware of gender (im)balances in debate. stop being sexist/transphobic jerks, y'all. it's not that hard. additionally, don't be racist. don't be sexist. don't be ableist. don't be a bad person.

Assigning speaker points comes down to: are you memorable? are you funny? are you a bad person? Did you keep my flow neat? How did you use cross?

I usually give in the 28.2-29.9 range, for reference.

ethics violations:

i consider ethics violations clipping, evidence fabrication/omission of paragraphs between the beginning and end of the card, and violence (e.g. calling Black people the n word as a non-Black person, refusing to use correct pronouns).

for clipping: a recording must be presented if a debater brings forth the challenge. if i notice it but no one brings it up, your speaker points will suffer greatly.

for evidence miscutting (this is NOT power tagging): after a debater brings it forward the round will stop. if the evidence is miscut, the team who miscut the evidence will lose with lowest speaker points possible. if the evidence is not miscut, the team who brought forth the violation will lose with the lowest speaker points possible. i will not entertain a debate on the undebatable.

for violence: i will stop the debate and the offender will receive the lowest speaker points possible and will lose. the person who is on the receiving end of the violence is not expected to give input. if you misgender me i will not stop the debate, but your speaker points will suffer.

one of these, because i love getting caught in the hype

brad hombres ------------------------------------X--banana nut brad

generic disad w/ well developed links/uq------X------------------------------------ thing you cut 30 mins before the round that you claim is a disad

read a plan--------------------X---------------------don't read a plan

case turns--X----------------------------------------generic defense

t not fw--------------X-------------------------------fw not t

"basically"-------------------------------------------X-just explaining the argument

truth over tech------------------X--------------------tech over truth

being nice-X------------------------------------------being not nice

piper meloche--------------------X--------------------brad meloche

'can i take prep'----------------------------------------X-just taking prep

explaining the alt------X--------------------------------assuming i know what buzzwords mean

process cps are cheating--------------------------X-------sometimes cheating is good

fairness--------------------------------X----------------literally any other fw impact besides iteration

impact turn-X--------------------------------------------non impact turn

fw as an impact turn------X--------------------------------fw as a procedural

green highlighting-X----------------------------------------any other color

rep---------------------------X----------------i don't know who you are and frankly i don't care to find out

asking if everyone is ready -X-----------------------------------asking if anyone isn't ready

jeff miller --------------------------------------X--- abby schirmer

PUBLIC FORUM SPECIFIC THINGS:

i find myself judging this a lot more than any other activity, and therefore have a LOT of opinions.

• time yourself. this includes prep. i'm not your mom, and i don't plan on doing it for you. the term "running prep" is becoming very popular, and i don't know what that means. just take prep.
• don't call me judge. "what should we refer to you as?" nothing! i don't know who is teaching y'all to catch judges' attentions by referring to us directly, but it's horrible, doesn't work, annoys all of us, and wastes precious time. you should be grabbing my attention in other ways: tone, argumentation, flowability, humor, sarcasm, lighting something on fire (please do not actually do this). call me by my first name (luke) if you have to, but know if you overuse it, it has the exact same affect as calling me "judge."
• PLEASE don't assume i know community norms, and saying things like "this is a community norm" doesn't automatically give you that dub. i entered PF during covid, and have a very strong policy background. this influences how i view things like disclosure or paraphrase theory.
• even more so than in policy, "post-rounding" me after a decision is incredibly common. you're allowed to fight with me all you want. just know it doesn't change my ballot, and certainly won't change it the next time around.
• i will never understand this asking for evidence after speeches. why aren't we just sending speech docs? judges are on a very strict schedule, and watching y'all spend five minutes sending evidence is both annoying and time consuming - bolding, because i continue to not get and, honestly? actively hate it when everyone spend 5-10 minutes after each speech exchanging evidence. just sent the whole speech. i don't get why this isn't the norm
• i'm fine with speed and 'unconventional arguments.' in fact, i'm probably better for them because i've found PF aff/neg contentions to be vague and poorly cut.
• PFers have a tendency to call things that aren't turns "turns." it's very odd to me. please don't do it.
• i'm not going to delay the round so you can preflow. idk who told y'all you can do that but they're wrong
• if you are using ev sending time to argue, i will interrupt you and make you start and/or i will tank your speaks. stop doing this.
• i'm very split on the idea of trigger warnings. i don't think they're necessary for non-in-depth/graphic discussions of a topic (Thing Exists and Is Bad, for example, is not an in-depth discussion in my eyes). i'm fine with trigger warning theory as an argument as long as you understand it's not an automatic W.
• flex prep is at best annoying and at worst cheating. if you start flex prepping i will yell at you and doc your speaker points.
• PLEASE READ THIS IF YOU WANT TO READ THEORY:I hear some kind of theory (mostly disclosure) at least once a tournament. I usually end up voting for theory not because the theory is done well, but because the other team does not answer it properly. I do like theory an unfortunate amount, but I would prefer to watch a good "substance" debate than a poor theory debate

LINCOLN DOUGLAS SPECIFIC THINGS:

• please read my policy and pf paradigms. they have important information about me and my judging

• of all the speech activities, i know about lincoln douglas the least. this can either be to your advantage or your detriment

• apparently theory matters to a lot of y'all a lot more in this activity than in policy. i got a high threshold for voting on any sort of theory that isn't condo, and even then you're in for the uphill battle of the century. i like theory debates generally, but watching LDers run theory like RVIs has killed my confidence in LD theory debate.

• 'i'm gonna take X minutes of prep' isn't needed. just say you're taking prep and take prep. i'll never understand LD or PF judges who act as if they are parents and y'all are 5 year olds asking for cookies after dinner; if you can figure out how tabroom works and how to unmute yourself, i'm pretty sure you can time your own prep.

• going fast does not mean you are good at debate, please don't rely on speed for ethos

• i hate disclosure theory and will prob vote neg 99.9% of the time (the .001% is for new affs or particularly bad answers). just put your stuff on the wiki, i genuinely don't understand why this is a debate to be had. just disclose. what year are you people living in.

things i don't care about:

- whether you keep your camera on or off (if you wanna lose free speaker points, that's up to you)

• speed. however, you should never be prioritizing speed over clarity.

hidden at the bottom: if you read the kato k and call it the "oppenheimer k" in the roadmap for the whole round i will give you a 30

neda-specific:

please use all your time. my bar for civility is much lower than most neda judges, so make of that what you will. please also use evidence.

A little bit about me: I coach for Millburn High School in New Jersey. I competed on the circuit in high school and college.

I do my very best to be as non-interventionist as possible, but I know some students like reading judge's paradigms to get a better sense of what they're thinking. I hope that the below is helpful :).

Overall: You can be nice and a good debater. :)

Here are some things to consider if I'm your Parliamentarian/ Judge in Congressional Debate:

- I am a sucker for a well-executed authorship/ sponsorship, so please don't be afraid to give the first speech! Just because you don't have refutation doesn't mean it isn't a good speech. I will be more inclined to give you a better speech score if you stand up and give the speech when no one is willing to do so because it shows preparedness.

- Bouncing off of the above bullet point, two things I really dislike while at national circuit tournaments are having no one stand up to give the earlier speeches (particularly in out rounds) and one-sided debate. You should be prepared to speak on either side of the legislation. You're there to debate, so debate. I'm much more inclined to rank you higher if you flip and have fluency breaks than if you're the fourth aff in a row.

- Asking the same question over and over to different speakers isn't particularly impressive to me (only in extreme circumstances should this ever be done). Make sure that you are catering the questions to the actual arguments from the speech and not asking generic questions that could be asked of anyone.

- Make my job easy as the judge. I will not make any links for you; you need to make the links yourself.

- Warrants are so important! Don't forget them!

- If you are giving one of the final speeches on a piece of legislation, I expect you to weigh the arguments and impacts that we have heard throughout the debate. Unless there has been a gross negligence in not bringing up a particular argument that you think is revolutionary and changes the debate entirely, you shouldn't really be bringing up new arguments at this point. There are, of course, situations where this may be necessary, but this is the general rule of thumb. Use your best judgment :).

- Please do your best to not read off of your pad. Engage with the audience/ judges, and don't feel as though you have to have something written down verbatim. I'm not expecting a speech to be completely flawless when you are delivering it extemporaneously. I historically score speeches higher if delivered extemporaneously and have a couple of minor fluency lapses than a speech read off of a sheet of paper with perfect fluency.

- Be active in the chamber! Remember, the judges are not ranking students based upon who is giving the best speeches, but who are the best legislators overall. This combines a myriad of factors, including speeches, questioning, overall activity, leadership in the chamber, decorum, and active listening (i.e. not practicing your speech while others are speaking, paying attention, etc.) Keep this in mind before going into a session.

- Please please please don't speak over the top of one another. This being said, that doesn't mean you have a right to monopolize the questioning time, but there is a nice way to cut someone off if they're going too long. Use your best judgment. Don't cut someone off two seconds after they start answering your question.

- I rank based on who I think are the overall best legislators in the chamber. This is a combination of the quality of speeches, questioning, command of parliamentary procedure, preparedness, and overall leadership and decorum in the chamber.

Let me know if you have any questions! :)

Here are some things to consider if I'm your judge in Public Forum:

- Please add me to the email chain if you have one: jordybarry@gmail.com

- I am really open to hearing almost any type of argument (except K's, please don't run K's in PF), but I wouldn’t consider myself a super techy judge. Do your thing, be clear, and enjoy yourselves!

- Please debate the resolution. It was written for a reason.

- It's important to me that you maintain clarity throughout the round. In addition, please don’t spread. I don’t have policy/ LD judging experience and probably won’t catch everything. If you get too fast/ to spreading speed I’ll say clear once, and if it’s still too fast/ you start spreading again, I’ll stop typing to indicate that I’m not getting what you’re saying on my flow.

- Take advantage of your final focus. Tell me why I should vote for you, don't solely focus on defensive arguments.

- Maintain organization throughout the round - your speeches should tell me what exact argument you are referring to in the round. Signposting is key! A messy debate is a poorly executed debate.

- I don't weigh one particular type of argument over another. I vote solely based on the flow, and will not impose my pre-existing beliefs and convictions on you (unless you're being racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, or xenophobic). It's your show, not mine!

- Please please please don't speak over the top of one another. This being said, that doesn't mean you have a right to monopolize the questioning time, but there is a nice way to cut someone off if they're going too long. Use your best judgment. Don't cut someone off two seconds after they start answering your question.

- Be polite!

- Make my job easy. I should not have to (and will not) make any links for you. You have to make the link yourselves. There should be a clear connection to your impacts.

- Weighing impacts is critical to your success, so please do it!

Any questions, please feel free to ask! Have fun and good luck!

I've judged a long time. I've heard it all. Some of it I like and some of it I do not. If I'm going to vote for you, I am going to be able to understand you. Speed is not important to me, at all. Make an argument, support it, and be able to defend it.

Remember that this is something you apparently believe in... Read LESS, argue with logic MORE. The most effective arguments are the ones off the top of mind where knowledge of the material is evident. Have your sources, of course, but show knowledge.

I am a parent judge. I judged over 100 competitions.

I will rate the competitors based on two main parts:

-Composition:

If the content is effective writing or not.

Does the competitor's speech organize clearly and easy to follow?

Does the speech contain ample solid reasoning and logic

Is the speech too general or does it focus on specifics?

Does the speech make too many generalizations or assumptions about the audience?

Does the speech contain evidence and examples?

Does the speech have good rhetorical choices?

-Delivery:

I would like competitors to use effective oral presentation skills. I will check if the competitor is comfortable with delivery such as having a clear voice, good intonation, or a nice tone.

I will also check if the speaker uses effective body language or not such as hand gestures, facial expressions, and eye contact.

My background: I am a former CEDA debater (1987-89) and CEDA coach (1990-93) from East Tennessee State University. Upon my retirement in August 2021 I've judged numerous at numerous debate tournaments for PF, LD, IDPA, Parli, and Big Questions (mostly PF and LD). (FYI, when I participated in CEDA it was quasi-policy, not true policy like it is today.)

Speed: I can keep up with a quick-ish speed - enunciation is very important! Pre round I can do a "speed test" and let you know what I think of a participant's speech speed if anyone wants to. I think it is especially important to make sure cases are comprehensible. I look at speech docs if something only if evidence is questioned. I was never a super speed debater and didn’t encourage my students to speed. Please keep all this in mind if you normally utilize speedy delivery.

Theory: I am familiar with topicality and if other theory is introduced, I could probably understand it. (I also used to run hasty generalization but not sure if that’s still a thing or not.) Theory is best used when it’s pertinent to a round, not added for filler and needs to be well developed if I am expected to vote on it. That being said, I also give the team defending themselves against a theory shell quite a bit of latitude to do so; I look more at the big picture of theory vs. arguing a dropped point or 2 and trying to pull it through to win.

The rounds: Racism/sexism etc. will not be tolerated. Rudeness isn’t appreciated either. I do not interject my own thoughts/opinions/judgements to make a decision, I only look at what is provided in the round itself. Re: criteria, I want to hear what the debaters bring forward and not have to come up with my own criteria to judge the round. My default criteria is cost/benefit analysis. I reserve the right to call in evidence. (Once I won a round that came down to a call for evidence, so, it can be important!) As far as overall judging, I always liked what my coach used to say – “write the ballot for me”. Debaters need to point out impacts and make solid, logical arguments. I appreciate good weighing and I will weigh the arguments that carried through to the end of the round more heavily than arguments that are not. Let me know what is important to vote on in your round and why. Sign posting/numbering arguments is appreciated and is VERY important to me; let me know where you plan to go at the top of your speech and also refer back to your roadmap as you go along.

Cross Examination: a good CX that advances the round is always valued. If someone asks a question, please don’t interrupt the debater answering the question. I don’t like to see a cross ex dominated by one side.

In most rounds I will keep back up speaking time and prep time.

I hope to see enjoyable and educational rounds. You will learn so many valuable skills being a debater! Good luck to all participants!

Please speak clearly and be respectful towards your opponent

TL;DR: Speed is fine, tech> truth, send a speech doc, read cut cards, disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad.

Background

I currently run the Public Forum program for Brophy Preparatory.

I debated public forum at Marist for 4 years (2019-2023). Competed in lots of rounds on the national circuit and went to TOC my junior and senior year.

I expect there to be an email chain sent up for evidence exchange every round. My email is:

jescayg@nd.edu

General Paradigm

Outside of issues of ethics I don’t believe it is my role to tell you how to debate the round. However, it is your responsibility to tell me how you wish me to judge the round. Debate is an inherently comparative activity which means that it is your obligation as a debater to provide me with a frame of reference for how my decision should be made. Weighing is paramount. Unless both teams use the same form of weighing, you should probably be answering the meta question about why your type of weighing is preferable. For example, why does it matter that your impact is bigger if their one is more likely? You need to win offense to access your weighing, but I have never written “you weighed too much” as a reason for a losing ballot.

Big debates aren’t usually better debates. You only need to have one good path to the ballot to win the round. Condensing the round will almost always be to your benefit. Rebuttal is your chance to throw everything against the wall and see what sticks. The back half is where you need to make strategic decisions about how to win the round. The speech times shrink, so your speeches should as well.

All offenses you plan on going for along with turns must be front-lined in second rebuttal. That being said, defense is usually not sticky. I say usually because in a world where the second speaking time does not frontline a contention in the second rebuttal I don't think you have to extend that defense it in the first summary. I do think you have to extend defensive responses that are dropped If they attempt to frontline a contention in the second rebuttal but miss a response.

If a team kicks out by extending a delink, it is typically safe to assume the remaining defense on the argument is conceded. Often, defensive concessions can be taken advantage of elsewhere on the flow. You all need to be taking time to think about the round as a whole and consider how arguments interact with each other at both a practical and technical level.

Yes, I can flow speed---debate is competitive, so you don’t need to slow down for your opponent. I also don't think you should be allowed to clear your opponent. That would be like asking a team to stop scoring on fast breaks in basketball. In fact, I will probably dock speaks if you do so. But please don't expect me to flow off a dock. I do care about clarity--I think this should be a given-- so if your opponents are unclear I will clear them. If you are a team that is inexperienced with speed and hit a team that goes fast, the best solution is not to try spreading for the first time in a round. Take some time to think about their arguments and try to condense the debate. Quality will always overwhelm quality. Debating smarter usually bests debating faster.

Evidence

I strongly prefer full cut cards and no paraphrasing when introducing evidence. From a pedagogical perspective, part of the learning value from public forum comes from developing good research practices. If you don't do this, you will probably lose the theory debate.

Call out bad evidence practices! If I am on a panel where theory is not an option you can still make general arguments about rejecting the argument that I will be partial to.

Compare evidence and author quality. Teams don’t do this enough and it can give a major leg up in the round. Not all evidence is created equal. Just because I like evidence doesn't mean I like bad evidence...

If you want me to call for a card, you should tell me in speech. I rarely ever go back and check evidence without being told to do so.

Verbal citations are a must and need to include author name and publication year. Otherwise it is plagiarism.

Progressive​​

Theory

If this is a Nat Circuit Tournament and a team is not disclosing or paraphrasing you should probably read theory :)

I default to compete interps and think rvis are largely regressive unless the shell is frivolous

If you disclose round reports may be beneficial, if not then I think they are a waste of time

Not a fan of trigger warnings unless an argument is actually graphic. My threshold for what it takes to be considered graphic has never been met thus far in debates I have either competed in or judged. Gabe Rusk’s paradigm has a long excerpt on why trigger warnings are likely bad that is worth a read and corroborates most of my admittedly less educated views.

Ks

Time constraints make Ks hard in PF, but I can’t say I don’t like a good K debate. That being said you still do need to treat it like a normal round and actually debate the arguments on the flow. Going for a K doesn't mean you don't have to extend. Also you should be extending your method in the back half.... I have had way to many K debates where the method will be something like "story-telling" and there is no stories being told in the second half of the debate.

If you want to talk about the Louisville Project, please actually take the time to understand what it is. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28026/chapter-abstract/211848679?redirectedFrom=fulltext 1) It is important to know about 2) you look silly when you talk about it incorrectly

Win the K on the flow and you will be good, but don’t presume I have knowledge on the more unorthodox positions. Basically just extend and weight effectively and you are fine

I don't know why I have to say but the neg can't just say the alt happens. I have judged multiple K debates where when asked how the neg alt happens they simply say it is their "advocacy." Unless you are running cap where the status quo means collapse, the alt should probably be rejection based given the lack of counter plans in pf.

If you are reading an argument that talks about changing the debate space, please don't have an opt-out form, it is counter-intuitive, and potentially terminal defense on your method if you are willing to not debate an argument that aims to change the space

Speaker Points

I’ll start at a 28.5 and adjust based on a mixture of style and strategy.

Have fun, you should never not enjoy a round.

I am a three-year varsity debater. I do flow and will vote off the flow; however, crossfire will not be flowed. Do not try to gain extra preparation time by over-asking for cards and/or delaying the time it takes to send your cards to the opposing team. Both competitors are responsible for upholding the time intervals for each speech and cross during the debate and to time their prep time. If there is an email chain to exchange evidence, please include my email (willfligg23@gmail.com) 

Thanks

This is my third year judging at a Speech & Debate tournament. I am a third year coach of the Wheeler High School Speech and Debate team.

Speak slowly enough that I can understand. You must use evidence to support your claims. Make sure to clearly emphasize impact. Be certain to listen to the opposing argument and respond directly to that argument. Don't forget to tell me which arguments you have refuted and why you have won the argument.

I was a three-year varsity PF debater at Marist School.

There are two main things I vote off the most in rounds:

• PLEASE extend the contentions you are going for (ideally at the start of your speech) and frontline. most rounds I vote on come down to which team extended better. Tell me where you think you're winning and I'll focus my vote there.
• Signposting. Make it painfully clear where you are in the flow. After all, if I misplace something, it only stands to hurt your chance of getting the vote.

Some other points about my judging:

• I will not flow crossfires, but I will pay attention and it may influence my vote.
• I expect anything in final focus to have been brought up during the summary.
• I expect second-speaking teams to respond to the first rebuttal in rebuttal.
• I expect defense to be extended if the contention isn't dropped.
• Teams are responsible for time intervals for each speech, crossfire, and any prep time used. I will be keeping time if anything is too far off.
• If you use an email chain, please include my email in the chain (amanhaileyesus23@gmail.com)

Congress

I've been judging Congressional Debate at the TOC since 2011. I'm looking for no rehash & building upon the argumentation. I want to hear you demonstrate true comparative understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the plan presented by the legislation. Don't simply praise or criticize the status quo as if the legislation before you doesn't exist.

LD Paradigm:

Each LDer should have a value/value criterion that clarifies how their case should be interpreted.

I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting whose V/VC weighs most heavily under their case. Winning this is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning at the contention level, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round.

Voting down the flow, if both sides prove framework and there’s not a lot of clash I would move on to the contention level and judge off the flow.

PUBLIC FORUM

SPEED
Don't. I can't deal with speed.

EVIDENCE
Paraphrasing is a horrible practice that I discourage. Additionally, I want to hear evidence dates (year of publication at a minimum) and sources (with author's credential if possible) cited in all evidence.

REBUTTALS
I believe it is the second team's duty to address both sides of the flow in the second team's rebuttal. A second team that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as whichever arguments go unaddressed are essentially conceded.

SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point.

FINAL FOCUS
FOCUS is key. I would prefer 2 big arguments over 10 blippy ones that span the length of the flow. If you intend to make an argument in the FF, it should have been well explained, supported with analysis and/or evidence, and extended from its origin point in the debate all the way through the FF.

IMPACTS

I rock with the nuclear war impact, but it's getting a little old, lol. The concept of a nuclear war is too complex and I find that it's been thrown too loosely in the debate space. I know it's cliche, but please don't generate this impact and tell me you win on magnitude and expect that to be a reason for me to give your team an easy ballot. If one of your impacts genuinely leads to an outbreak of a nuclear war, please warrant it well.

CX

I am a policymaker judge who does not ignore the stock issues. I think the Aff's job is to propose a topical policy solution and the Negative's job is to demonstrate why that policy should be rejected. I will weigh the advantages and disadvantages, plan vs CP, and impacts. I will vote on kritiks if they can be clearly enunciated and applied to the advocacy in round. C-X is a highly effective way of framing/rebutting your opponent's arguments.

NFA-LD

I view NFA-LD as one-person policy. Please refer to CX comments just above.

INTERP

Overall: I pay real close attention to the introduction of each piece, I look for the lens of analysis and the central thesis that will be advanced during the interpretation of literature. When the performance is happening, I'm checking to see if they have dug down deep enough into an understanding of their literature through that intro and have given me a way to contextualize the events that are happening during the performance

POI: I look for clean transitions and characterization (if doing multiple voices).

DI: I look for the small human elements that come from acting. Big and loud gestures are not always the way to convey the point, sometimes something smaller gets the point more powerfully.

HI: I look for clean character transitions, distinct voices, and strong energy in the movements. And of course the humor.

INFO: I'm looking for a well researched speech that has a strong message to deliver. Regardless of the genre of info you're presenting, I think that showing you've been exhaustive with your understanding is a good way to win my ballot. I'm not wow'd by flashy visuals that add little substance, and I'm put off by speeches that misrepresent intellectual concepts, even unintentionally. I like speeches that have a conclusion, and if the end of your speech is "and we still don't know" then I think you might want to reassess the overall direction you are taking.

FX/DX: When I'm evaluating an extemp speech, I'm continually thinking "did they answer the question? or did they answer something that sounded similar?" So keep that in your mind. Are you directly answering the question? When you present information that could be removed without affecting the overall quality of the speech, that is a sign that there wasn't enough research done by the speaker. What I vote on in terms of content are speeches that show a depth of understanding of the topic by evaluating the wider implications that a topic has for the area/region/politics/etc.

I debated for 4 years as a PF debater at Marist School in Georgia.

Add me to your email chains

hornemat@msu.edu

maristpublicforum@gmail.com

If you spread, send a speech doc

Tech>truth

Time your own speeches, prep, and crossfires.

I pay attention to cross solely for speaker points, if something happens that I should know about, let me know in the speech.

Please weigh and collapse in your summaries. Narrowing down the debate is important in the back half of rounds

Email me if you have any questions about rfd.

Judging I look for: speech suitability to the speaker, performance technique, creativity, understanding of the material.

she/her | add me to the email chain: ellykang@mit.edu

competed in nat cir public forum for 4 years at marist

general notes

tech > truth

please preflow before the round

i will always prefer better comparatively weighed arguments

love weighing introduced earlier (especially in rebuttal!)

warranted analytics > unwarranted evidence

can handle speed but will clear you if i can't understand + you should be slowing down on taglines, send speech docs in the email chain if you spread

if you do paraphrase, please at least have cut cards. if evidence is called for and sent in the email chain, it should be sent in cut card format. if you don't have a cut card for key evidence, your speaks and the argument will be dropped.

won't evaluate arguments in cross unless they're made in speeches

rebuttal

must frontline in second rebuttal (at the very minimum, frontline what you collapse on and every offensive argument)

implicate your responses and tell me why they matter in context of the round

summary + final

defense isn't sticky

collapse in the back half. for anything you collapse on, extend every part of the argument (uniqueness, link, internal link, impact)

back half should be consistent. everything in final needs to be in summary or i won't evaluate it

progressive argumentation

i do believe reading cut cards and open source disclosure are good norms, but reading those shells is not an auto win. you have to win the shell for me to vote off it

i don't like friv theory that doesn't actually contribute education or fairness to debate + probably won't evaluate it. i consider friv anything that isn't disclosure, paraphrasing, or content warning theory. but note i have a fairly high threshold for what requires a content warning

have judged kritiks several times, but not the most familiar with them. if you read one, i'll do my best to evaluate

other notes

i give speaks solely based on strategic decisions in round

if you are any kind of -ist in round, i will immediately drop you with the lowest speaks i can give

if you have any questions you can always ask! feel free to email me if there are any others after the round

Marist School (Class of 25')

Hi y'all my name is Faiza!

here is my email for chains: faizakhaled25@marist.com

I’m a fourth year competitor for Marist! I primarily compete in POI & INFO (and other speech events) but did a little policy way back when and also judge public forum, so I understand the debate basics. It is to your benefit to treat me like a lay judge, but that being said, there are a couple things you can do to increase your chance of winning

1) Slow down! Your goal is to be persuasive, not make as many arguments as possible. Use your time to your advantage, but remember, quality over quantity. A short but fully developed speech is much more impactful to me rather than a lengthy speech that regurgitates your case redundantly and doesn't extend or weigh the opposing sides case or show any impact. Clarity over speed.

- On the note of time, respect the time of both your judges as well as the other competitors. This applies to everyone in terms of being prepared to start the debate on time as well as during the debate round, especially during prep time.

2) Signpost, if you tell me to write something down I’ll definitely be included on my flow.

3) Use cross to highlight important parts of the debate, if I hear it more often I’ll remember it.

4) Weigh! I think that weighing your case with the opposing side is a fantastic mechanism to contest the opposing argument while creating nuance within your own argument in a effective and efficient way. Also, extend every part of your argument and show its impact.

5) Extend.

6) Speaking points will be based on clarity and quality.

7) Unless it is serious, theory should be avoided.

Remember to have fun and be respectful! If an argument seems true it will be more likely to decide my ballot. I’ll only evaluate arguments made in the round, but I come from a background that emphasizes persuasion. Good luck!

I'm a three year varsity debater. I did PF and now speech.

I will flow the round and will vote off the flow. This means that I will not consider crossfire in the round unless the questions and responses in CX are brought up in speeches. 

To have arguments and responses considered, debaters should extend their evidence from rebuttal to FF. If something isn't extended in summary but shows up in FF, I will consider it dropped in the round. If there is no response to an argument or response made in the round, I will consider it conceded. 

Evidence should be open and available for both teams to access. I prefer email chains and will not count the time it takes to send evidence as prep time. If their is an email chain, please include my email davidkleinrock23@marist.com

In terms of timing, I expect debaters to time themselves and the other team. I will also time, and going over the limit for each speech will result in a deduction from your speaks at the end of the round.

PLEASE frontline rebuttal and weigh your impacts so I don't have to do it for you. Framework does not matter to me at all.

In terms of speaks, I'll start with a 28.5, as long as you do nothing egregious you'll end with that score. To boost it, you should focus on organization, detailed interactions between evidence, and well-thought out weighing. (Being good in CX will help you here, but not in the overall round decision)

I debated for four years at Marist.

Here are some guidelines for the round:

1. I expect everything in the final focus to be in the summary.
2. Second speaking teams must respond to the first rebuttal.
3. First speaking teams must extend defense in the first summary.
4. I don't flow crossfire.
5. Competitors are responsible for upholding the time intervals for each speech and cross during the debate and to time their prep time (I will keep time as well).
6. If there is an email chain to exchange evidence, please include my email (keeganleary18@gmail.com).

I am a judge for IE. My background is as faculty at various universities providing mentoring to Capstone and thesis graduate students who present their scholarly projects and research information.

I stay faithful to the judging criteria for content and relevance. Even if you are an animated and a well poised speaker, if you lack content or do not adequately develop and organize your information, my judging will reflect that you did not meet the criteria established. Conversely, a speaker who may not have the best presence but has great content will rank higher than a good verbal talker without good context. You will not get first if you go over the time limit and the established grace period.

Please let me know what type of hand signals you wish to have to help you with managing your time.

Thank you for the privilege of hearing you speak.

I primarily judged speech events and coached limited prep speech for some students.

My judging criteria for extemp:

Content:
Analysis: Does the speech demonstrate a clear understanding of the issue and its complexities? Does it go beyond simply summarizing the news?
Argumentation: Does the speech present a well-defined central thesis? Are there strong supporting arguments with evidence?
Source Consideration: Does the speaker utilize a variety of credible sources to support their claims?
Transitions: Does the speaker give a transition between points?

Delivery:
Voice: Is the speaker's voice clear, audible, and varied in pitch and pace?
Articulation: Does the speaker enunciate words clearly and avoid filler words ("um," "like")?
Stage Presence: Does the speaker exhibit good posture, eye contact, and use of gestures to engage the audience?
Time Management: Does the speech stay within the allotted time limit?

Lincoln-Douglas Debate -

In judging Lincoln-Douglas (LD) Debate, my approach revolves around a few core principles that align with the fundamental objectives and structure of LD Debate. Here’s a detailed paradigm for how I evaluate debates in this format:

Lincoln-Douglas Debate is designed to engage participants in a philosophical and ethical discourse, focusing on values and principles rather than policy specifics. The objective is to assess the validity of competing value frameworks and the application of these values to the resolution.

1. **Central Role of Values**: The core of LD Debate lies in the clash of values. Each debater must present a value proposition, which is a fundamental belief or principle that they argue should guide decision-making. The Value Criterion (VC) is the metric by which the value is practically applied to the resolution. It’s crucial that the Value Criterion is clearly defined and logically connected to the Value, offering a clear standard for evaluating the round.

2. **Evaluative Framework**: I prioritize the clarity and relevance of the Value Criterion. It must be directly tied to the Value and effectively demonstrate how the arguments and evidence presented align with or support the Value. A strong Value Criterion will help in weighing the impacts of arguments in relation to the core philosophical issues.

### Evaluative Criteria

1. **Clarity and Coherence**: Arguments should be clear and logically structured. The debaters’ value and value criterion should be well-defined and consistently applied throughout the round.

2. **Relevance**: Arguments should address the resolution and engage with the philosophical implications rather than focusing on policy details or technicalities.

3. **Impact and Application**: Evaluate how well each debater applies their Value Criterion to the resolution. The round should focus on the ethical and philosophical dimensions of the topic rather than practical policy solutions.

### Policy Debate Tactics

I will not tolerate tactics typical of policy debate, such as "spreading" (rapid-fire delivery of arguments) or excessive technical jargon that obfuscates the debate’s core philosophical focus. LD Debate is intended to be accessible and focused on substantive value-based discourse. Arguments should be presented in a clear and accessible manner, allowing for a meaningful evaluation of values and criteria.

In summary, in Lincoln-Douglas Debate, I emphasize the importance of a clear Value Criterion connected to a well-defined Value, with a focus on the ethical and philosophical dimensions of the resolution. Policy debate tactics that detract from this focus, such as spreading, will not be considered effective in this format.

Congressional Debate -

Presiding Officer: Presiding Officers should be an individual who can show mastery levels of understanding of the role of Presiding Officers in the chamber. It's understood this would be a presiding officer who, once elected, can show leadership of the chamber by beginning with a phrase similar to “this chamber will come to order.” I expect the Presiding Officer will use their best effort to recognize speakers around the chamber in a fair and balanced manner. Describe gavel time signals. Explain procedures clearly: i.e., how they will recognize speakers, etc., that the Presiding Officer will not call for motions at any time (speakers should seek their attention when they wish to rise to move something), and that when it is clear that debate has exhausted on a bill/resolution, The Presiding Officer will ask the chamber if they are ready for the question, rather than waiting for the previous question (which should be reserved for forcing end to debate that has become one-sided or repetitive in arguments). The Presiding Officer should have confidence and authority when addressing the chamber. The Presiding Officer should use a calm, controlled and caring voice to show a genuine interest in the chamber’s business at all times.

Speakers: My expectations for speakers are competitors who have their speeches made beforehand on bills that they really have a passion about. Speakers should be ready to speak and ask questions that are going to challenge their opponents to think candidly and without much preparation. I expect speakers to think critically on the bill in question and be able to show expertise on the subject at hand. These topics take some time to truly research. I will be able to distinguish a speaker who has really taken the time on the topic beforehand or a speaker who clearly is looking for "cheap" speaking points. Although this is simply competition to some, this is a great practice and really good insight for folks to understand how our Congress works in the real world. I want them to understand the Difficulties of passing legislation that may be viewed as "one-sided" or not. I expect good back and forth discussion amongst speakers when it comes to various bills that may one day, affect them in real life if we are to see these bills appear in a real State or United States House of Representatives or Senate. These folks are the people of tomorrow. WE need our folks more involved than ever before; so to my speakers; act as if you have genuine care and passion for what you are debating for as if your FUTURE depends on it and is hanging by the rafters.

Chad Meadows (he/him)

chadwickmeadows@gmail.com

If you have interest in college debate, and would be interested in hearing about very expansive scholarship opportunities please contact me. Our program competes in two policy formats and travels to at least 4 tournaments a semester. Most of our nationally competitive students have close to zero cost of attendance because of debate specific financial support.

Debate Experience

College: I’ve been the head argument coach and/or Director of Debate for Western Kentucky University for a little over a decade. WKU competes in NFA-LD and CEDA/NDT

High School: I’ve been an Assistant Coach, and primarily judge, for the Marist School in Atlanta, Georgia for several years. In this capacity I’ve judged at high school tournaments in both Policy Debate and Public Forum.

High School Topic Exposure

I am not a primary argument coach or participant at Summer institute for high school policy debate, and do not have in-depth knowledge of IP topic trends.

Argument Experience/Preferences

I feel comfortable evaluating the range of debates in modern policy debate (no plan affirmatives, policy, and kritik) though I am the most confident in policy rounds. My research interests tend toward more political science/international affairs/economics, though I’ve become well read in some critical areas in tandem with my students’ interests (anti-blackness/afropessimism in particular) in addition I have some cursory knowledge of the standard kritik arguments in debate, but no one would mistake me for a philosophy enthusiast. On the Energy topic, almost all of my research has been on the policy side.

Though I don't feel particularly dogmatic about the plan/no plan debate, my preference is that the affirmative should advocate a topical plan and the debate should be about the desirability of that plan. I do not enjoy clash debates, and in those rounds HEAVILY appreciate some novelty/pen time/judge instruction PLEASE.

I have few policy preferences with regard to content, but view some argumentative trends with skepticism: Counterplans that result in the plan (consult and many process counterplans), Agent counterplans, voting negative any procedural concern that isn’t topicality, reject the team counterplan theory that isn’t conditionality, some versions of politics DAs that rely on defining the process of fiat, arguments that rely on voting against the representations of the affirmative without voting against the result of the plan.

I feel very uncomfortable evaluating events that have happened outside of the debate round

Decision Process

I tend to read more cards following the debate than most. That’s both because I’m curious, and I tend to find that debaters are informing their discussion given the evidence cited in the round, and I understand their arguments better having read the cards myself.

I give less credibility to arguments that appear unsupported by academic literature, even if the in round execution on those arguments is solid. I certainly support creativity and am open to a wide variety of arguments, but my natural disposition sides with excellent debate on arguments that are well represented in the topic literature.

To decide challenging debates I generally use two strategies: 1) write a decision for both sides and determine which reflects the in-round debating as opposed to my own intuition, and 2) list the relevant meta-issues in the round (realism vs liberal internationalism, debate is a game vs. debate should spill out, etc.) and list the supporting arguments each side highlighted for each argument and attempt to make sense of who debated the best on the issues that appear to matter most for resolving the decision.

I try to explain why I sided with the winner on each important issue, and go through each argument extended in the final rebuttal for the losing team and explain why I wasn’t persuaded by that argument.

Public Forum

Baseline expectations: introduce evidence using directly quoted sections of articles not paraphrasing, disclose arguments you plan to read in debates.

Argument preferences: no hard and fast rules, but I prefer debates that most closely resemble the academic and professional controversy posed by the topic. Debate about debate, while important in many contexts, is not the argument I'm most interested in adjudicating.

Style preferences: Argumentation not speaking style will make up the bulk of my decision making and feedback, my reflections on debate are informed by detailed note taking of the speeches, speeches should focus their time on clashing with their opponents' arguments.

Jeffrey Miller

Current Coach -- Marist School (2011-present)
Lab Leader -- Institute for Speech & Debate (2024-present), National Debate Forum (2015-2023), Emory University (2016), Dartmouth College (2014-2015), University of Georgia (2012-2015)
Former Coach -- Fayette County (2006-2011), Wheeler (2008-2009)
Former Debater -- Fayette County (2002-2006)

jmill126@gmail.com and maristpublicforum@gmail.com for email chains, please (no google doc sharing and no locked google docs)

Last Updated -- 10/8/2024 for 2024-2025 season

Overview

I am a high school teacher who believes in the power that speech and debate provides students. There is no another activity that provides the benefits that this activity does.

I wear a lot of hats as a debate coach - I am heavily involved in argument creation and strategy discussions with all levels of our public forum teams (middle school, novice and varsity). I work closely with our extemp students working on current events, cutting cards and listening to speeches. I work closely with our interp students on their pieces - from cutting them to blocking them. I work closely with platform students working with them to strategically think about integrating research into their messages.

I have been involved with the PF topic wording committee for the past eight years so any complaints (or compliments) about topics are probably somewhat in my area. I take my role on the committee seriously trying to let research guide topics and I have a lot of thoughts and opinions about how debates under topics should happen and while I try to not let those seep into the debates, there is a part of me that can't resist the truth of the topic lit.

As your judge, it is my job to give you the best experience possible in that round. I will work as hard in giving you that experience as I expect you are working to win the debate. I think online debate is amazing and would not be bothered if we never returned to in-person competitions again. For online debate to work, everyone should have their cameras on and be cordial with other understanding that there can be technical issues in a round.

What does a good debate look like?

In my opinion, a good debate features two well-researched teams who clash around a central thesis of the topic. Teams can demonstrate this through a variety of ways in a debate such as the use of evidence, smart questioning in cross examination and strategical thinking through the use of casing and rebuttals. In good debates, each speech answers the one that precedes it (with the second constructive being the exception in public forum). Good debates are fun for all those involved including the judge(s).

The best debates are typically smaller in nature as they can resolve key parts of the debate. The proliferation of large constructives have hindered many second halves as they decrease the amount of time students can interact with specific parts of arguments and even worse leaving judges to sort things out themselves and increasing intervention.

What role does theory play in good debates?

I've always said I prefer substance over theory. That being said, I do know theory has its place in debate rounds and I do have strong opinions on many violations. I will do my best to evaluate theory as pragmatically as possible by weighing the offense under each interpretation. For a crash course in my beliefs of theory - disclosure is good, open source is an unnecessary standard for high school public forum teams until a minimum standard of disclosure is established, paraphrasing is bad, round reports is frivolous, content warnings for graphic representations is required, content warnings over non-graphic representations is debatable and I probably err that they silence a majority of debaters.

All of this being said, I don't view myself as an autostrike for teams that don't disclose or paraphrase. However, I've judged enough this year to tell you if you are one of those teams and happen to debate someone with thoughts similar to mine, you should be prepared with answers and "our coach doesn't allow us" is not an answer.

I am not your judge if you want to read things like font theory or other frivilous items.

I am also not persauded by many IVI's. IVI's (like RVI's) are an example of bad early 2000's policy debate. Teams should just make arguments against things and not have to read an 'independent voting issue' in order for me to flag it to vote on the argument. Implicate your arguments and I will vote.

Do teams need to advocate the topic?

Like I said above, arguments work best when they are in the context of the critical thesis of the topic. Thus, if you are reading the same cards in your framing contention from the Septober topic that have zero connections to the current topic, I think you are starting a up-hill battle for yourselves.

Links of omission are not persuasive - teams need to identify real links for all of their positions.

In terms of the progressive debates I've watched, judged or talked about, it seems like there is a confusion about structural violence - and teams conflate any impact with marginalized group as a SV impact. This is disappointing to watch and if reading claims about SV - the constructive should also be explicit about what structures the aff/neg makes worse that implicate the violence.

Saying "structural violence comes first" doesn't automatically mean it does or that you win. These are debatable arguments, please debate them. I am also finding that sometimes the lack of clash isn't a problem of unprepared debaters, but rather there isn't enough time to resolve major issues in the literature. At a minimum, your evidence that is making progressive type claims in the debate should never be paraphrased and should be well warranted. I have found myself struggling to flow framing contentions that include four completely different arguments that should take 1.5 minutes to read that PF debaters are reading in 20-30 seconds (Read: your crisis politics cards should be more than one line).

How should evidence exchange work?

Evidence exchange in public forum is broken. At the beginning of COVID, I found myself thinking cases sent after the speech in order to protect flowing. However, my view on this has shifted. A lot of debates I found myself judging last season had evidence delays after case. At this point, constructives should be sent immediately prior to speeches. (If you paraphrase, you should send your narrative version with the cut cards in order).

Rebuttals should also probably be emailed in order to check evidence being read.

When you send evidence to the email chain, I prefer a cut card with a proper citation and highlighting to indicate what was read. Cards with no formatting or just links are as a good as analytics.

Evidence should be attached in a document, not in the text of an email. It is annoying to have to "view more" every single time. Just attach a document.

If you send me a locked/uneditable google doc, I will give you the lowest points available at the tournament.

What effects speaker points?

I am trying to increase my baseline for points as I've found I'm typically below average. Instead of starting at a 28, I will try to start at a 28.5 for debaters and move accordingly. Argument selection, strategy choices and smart crossfires are the best way to earn more points with me. You're probably not going to get a 30 but have a good debate with smart strategy choices, and you should get a 29+.

This only applies to tournaments that use a 0.1 metric -- tournaments that are using half points are bad.

A few things about me (TLDR version):

Former policy debater at University of Georgia ('20), Syracuse Law ('23)

Plans are good

Impact calculus is important. Tell me how to write my ballot.

Clarity > Speed

Cross-ex is binding

Have fun and don't be rude!

Long version:

Framework - I'm a good judge for framework. Debate is a game and framework is procedural question. I’m persuaded by negative appeals to limits and I think fairness is an impact in and of itself. I don’t think the topical version of the aff needs to “solve” in the same way the aff does. If there are DA's to the topical version of the aff, that seems to prove neg ground under the negative’s vision of debate. Tell me what your model of debate looks like, what negative positions does it justify, and what is the value of those positions.

Kritiks - I think it's really hard for the neg to win that the aff shouldn't get to weigh the plan provided the aff answers framework well. I've got a decent grasp on the literature surrounding critical security studies, critiques of capitalism, and settler colonialism. The aff should focus on attacking the alternative both at a substance and theoretical level. It's critical that the 2AR defines the solvency deficits to the alternative and weigh that against the case. Negative debaters should spend more time talking about the case in the context of the kritik. A good warranted link and turns the case debates are the best way for negative teams to get my ballot. Tell me how the links to the aff uniquely lead to the impacts.

Counterplans - They don't have to be topical. Whether you have a specific solvency advocate will determine if your counterplan is legitimate or not. There's nothing better than a well-researched mechanism counterplan and there's nothing worse than a hyper-generic process counterplan that you recycle for every negative debate on the topic. I generally think that 2 conditional options are good, but I can be persuaded by 3 condo is okay. PICs are probably good. Consult/Conditioning/delay counterplans, international fiat, and 50 state fiat are bad. Typically, if you win theory I reject the argument not the team unless told otherwise.

Disads- I love a good DA and case debate. I've gone for the politics DA a lot in my college career. Normally uniqueness controls the link, but I can persuaded otherwise. Impact calc and good turns cases analysis is the best!

Add me onto the e-mail chain, my email is miriam.mokhemar@gmail.com. If your computer crashes, stop the timer until you can get your doc back up.

Hi there! I've been performing since I was very young, and I am a 2007 graduate of the American Musical & Dramatic Academy in New York City. I direct both adult and youth productions at my local theatre and have been an active judge in both this year's, as well as last year's, tournament seasons.

I have completed the NFHS Cultural Competency course, and I identify as diversity enhancing!

POI/PR/PO: Show me a strong commitment to your material, with bold but organic choices. Use your binder --this is a reading event-- but don't hide behind it!

HI/DI: Make sure your piece tells a decisive story and that your character transitions are smooth enough that I know who's talking at at all times! Also important: sure, bold choices are good, but I still want to see the nuances behind your characters and what you're saying. Rather than just doing stock characters, approach them from a place of truth. That almost always yields funnier and/or more powerful results!

EXTEMP: Research, research, research! I'm looking for a well-organized speech that answers the question clearly and provides a lot of cited sources.

OO/INFO: I love how much I learn when judging both of these categories. Remember your top priority is to teach us something, and that good lessons are organized, compelling, and easy to understand.

CONGRESS: Ask great questions of your fellow debaters and be researched enough to be able to provide convincing answers to the questions that are asked of you! Looking for strong points and organization in your speeches!

Remember that no one can offer exactly what YOU offer, and embrace that! Most of all, have fun!

I am looking for creative speech topics. Material should show deep knowledge, good organization, and clear evidence from source material. I like out of the box thinking. Be clear in your thoughts and use facts to show understanding of your topic. Have good annunciation, transitions, body language, and appropriate emotions. Assume I don’t know anything about the topic. If the topic allows...Be happy, Be positive, and smile.

Marist, Atlanta, GA (2015-2019, 2020-Present)
Pace Academy, Atlanta GA (2019-2020)
Stratford Academy, Macon GA (2008-2015)
Michigan State University (2004-2008)

Pronouns- She/Her

Please use email chains. Please add me- abby.schirmer@gmail.com.

Short version- You need to read and defend a plan in front of me. I value clarity (in both a strategic and vocal sense) and strategy. A good strategic aff or neg strat will always win out over something haphazardly put together. Impact your arguments, impact them against your opponents arguments (This is just as true with a critical strategy as it is with a DA, CP, Case Strategy). I like to read evidence during the debate. I usually make decisions pretty quickly. Typically I can see the nexus question of the debate clearly by the 2nr/2ar and when (if) its resolved, its resolved. Don't take it personally.

Long Version:
Case Debate- I like specific case debate. Shows you put in the hard work it takes to research and defeat the aff. I will reward hard work if there is solid Internal link debating. I think case specific disads are also pretty good if well thought out and executed. I like impact turn debates. Cleanly executed ones will usually result in a neg ballot -- messy debates, however, will not.

Disads- Defense and offense should be present, especially in a link turn/impact turn debate. You will only win an impact turn debate if you first have defense against their original disad impacts. I'm willing to vote on defense (at least assign a relatively low probability to a DA in the presence of compelling aff defense). Defense wins championships. Impact calc is important. I think this is a debate that should start early (2ac) and shouldn't end until the debate is over. I don't think the U necessarily controls the direction of the link, but can be persuaded it does if told and explained why that true.

K's- Im better for the K now than i have been in years past. That being said, Im better for security/international relations/neolib based ks than i am for race, gender, psycho, baudrillard etc . I tend to find specific Ks (ie specific to the aff's mechanism/advantages etc) the most appealing. If you're going for a K-- 1) please don't expect me to know weird or specific ultra critical jargon... b/c i probably wont. 2) Cheat- I vote on K tricks all the time (aff don't make me do this). 3) Make the link debate as specific as possible and pull examples straight from the aff's evidence and the debate in general 4) I totally geek out for well explained historical examples that prove your link/impact args. I think getting to weigh the aff is a god given right. Role of the ballot should be a question that gets debated out. What does the ballot mean with in your framework. These debates should NOT be happening in the 2NR/2AR-- they should start as early as possible. I think debates about competing methods are fine. I think floating pics are also fine (unless told otherwise). I think epistemology debates are interesting. K debates need some discussion of an impact-- i do not know what it means to say..."the ZERO POINT OF THE Holocaust." I think having an external impact is also good - turning the case alone, or making their impacts inevitable isn't enough. There also needs to be some articulation of what the alternative does... voting neg doesn't mean that your links go away. I will vote on the perm if its articulated well and if its a reason why plan plus alt would overcome any of the link questions. Link defense needs to accompany these debates.

K affs are fine- you have to have a plan. You should defend that plan. Affs who don't will prob lose to framework. A alot.... and with that we come to:

NonTraditional Teams-
If not defending a plan is your thing, I'm not your judge. I think topical plans are good. I think the aff needs to read a topical plan and defend the action of that topical plan. I don't think using the USFG is an endorsement of its racist, sexist, homophobic or ableist ways. I think affs who debate this way tend to leave zero ground for the negative to engage which defeats the entire point of the activity. I am persuaded by T/Framework in these scenarios. I also think if you've made the good faith effort to engage, then you should be rewarded. These arguments make a little more sense on the negative but I am not compelled by arguments that claim: "you didn't talk about it, so you should lose."

CPs- Defending the SQ is a bold strat. Multiple conditional (or dispo/uncondish) CPs are also fine. Condo is probably good, but i can be persuaded otherwise. Consult away- its arbitrary to hate them in light of the fact that everything else is fine. I lean neg on CP theory. Aff's make sure you perm the CP (and all its planks). Im willing to judge kick the CP for you. If i determine that the CP is not competitive, or that its a worse option - the CP will go away and you'll be left with whatever is left (NBs or Solvency turns etc). This is only true if the AFF says nothing to the contrary. (ie. The aff has to tell me NOT to kick the CP - and win that issue in the debate). I WILL NOT VOTE ON NO NEG FIAT. That argument makes me mad. Of course the neg gets fiat. Don't be absurd.

T- I default to offense/defense type framework, but can be persuaded otherwise. Impact your reasons why I should vote neg. You need to have unique offense on T. K's of T are stupid. I think the aff has to run a topical aff, and K-ing that logic is ridiculous. T isn't racist. RVIs are never ever compelling.... ever.

Theory- I tend to lean neg on theory. Condo- Good. More than two then the aff might have a case to make as to why its bad - i've voted aff on Condo, I've voted neg on condo. Its a debate to be had. Any other theory argument I think is categorically a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I can't figure out a reason why if the aff wins international fiat is bad that means the neg loses - i just think that means the CP goes away.

Remember!!! All of this is just a guide for how you chose your args in round. I will vote on most args if they are argued well and have some sort of an impact. Evidence comparison is also good in my book-- its not done enough and i think its one of the most valuable ways to create an ethos of control with in the debate. Perception is everything, especially if you control the spin of the debate. I will read evidence if i need to-- don't volunteer it and don't give me more than i ask for. I love fun debates, i like people who are nice, i like people who are funny... i will reward you with good points if you are both. Be nice to your partner and your opponents. No need to be a jerk for no reason

I was a policy debater in high school and college, but have been coaching other formats for the past 20 years. I would prefer that you don't speak too fast, as my ear is no longer able to catch everything like it once was. This doesn't mean you have to speak at a conversational pace, just that if you go too fast, I am likely to miss things on my flow.

I will only read evidence after a round if there is a debate about what it actually says. This means you are responsible for articulating the warrants within your evidence throughout the debate if you want those warrants evaluated. Author name extensions are useless in front of me, as unless you are debating about someone's qualifications, it won't matter in my decision calculus, and a name on my flow is nowhere near as useful for you as using that time to articulate the argument itself. Quality of evidence only factors into my decision if there is a debate about why it should.

I will vote in the way I am told to. If there is no debate over the method for deciding between competing claims, I will usually default to voting for the team that wins more arguments overall.

Current Associate Director of Debate at Woodward Academy

Former Associate Director of Debate at Emory University.Former graduate student coach at University of Georgia, Wake Forest University, University of Florida

Create an email chain for evidence before the debate begins. Put me on it. My email address is lace.stace@gmail.com

Do not trivialize or deny the Holocaust

Online Debates:

Determine if I am in the room before you start a speech. "Becca, are you ready?" or "Becca, are you here?" I will give you a thumbs up or say yes (or I am not in the room and you shouldn't start).

I get that tech issues happen, but unnecessary tech time hurts decision time.

Please have one (or all) debaters look periodically to make sure people haven't gotten booted from the room. The internet can be unreliable. You might get booted from the room. I might get booted from the room. The best practice is to have a backup of yourself speaking in case this occurs. If the tournament has rules about this, follow those.

DA’s:

Is there an overview that requires a new sheet of paper? I hope not

Impact turn debates are fine with me

Counterplans:

What are the key differences between the CP and the plan?

Does the CP solve some of the aff or all of the aff?

Be clear about which DA/s you are claiming as the net benefit/s to your CP

"Solving more" is not a net benefit

I lean neg on international fiat, PICS, & agent CP theory arguments

I am open minded to debates about conditionality & multiple conditional planks theory arguments.

Lately I have noticed I am hoping to see a good AFF solvency deficit or theory argument as the way the AFF tries to win in the rebuttal more so than a permutation/competition type of debate

Flowing:

Make flowing easier for me (ex. debating line by line, signposting, identifying the other team’s argument and making direct answers, answer arguments individually rather than “grouping”)

Cross-X:

"What cards did you read?" "What cards did you not read?" "Did you read X off case position?" "Where did you stop in this document?" - those questions count as cross-x time! If a speech ends and you ask these, you should already be starting your timer for cross-x!

Avoid intervening in your partners cross-x time, whether asking or answering. Tag team is for professional wrestling, not debate.

Public forum debate specific thoughts:

I am most comfortable with constructive speeches that organize contentions using this structure: uniqueness, link, and impact.

I am comfortable with the use of speed.

From my experience coaching policy debate, I care a lot about quantity and quality of evidence.

I am suspicious of paraphrased evidence.

I like when the summary and final focus speeches make the debate smaller. If your constructive started with 2 or 3 contentions, by the summary and final focus your team should make a choice of just 1 contention to attempt winning.

Because of my background in policy debate, it takes me out of my comfort zone when the con/neg team speaks first.

University of North Georgia Forensics

lianastovall@gmail.com

She/Her/Hers