Hey, I am a graduated debater of LD.

Email: namireddy.edu@gmail.com

I like to see traditional cases at novice tournaments, but I am okay with non-traditional if done correctly.

Give roadmaps before each speech. (except 1AC)

I like to see framework debate and connection of contentions/arguments back to value and criterion.

I am not a fan of spreading (speaking extremely fast), but I will not count off if I can still understand you.

I will be keeping time, but I suggest you do, too.

Signposting is very important.

Voters help me weigh the round.

Most importantly, keep the debate clean. At the end of the day, debate is meant to encourage critical thinking and improve real life skills. Let's do our best and have fun whilst in the round.

If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask me. I am more than happy to answer them. Looking forward to see you guys do amazing.

My name is Sarah Chew, and I'm a JV college debater at Samford. I have a year and a half of policy debating experience behind me.

I value clarity, demonstrated understanding of the topic/arguments, and well-thought-out analytics > otherwise unsupported evidence. When you extend evidence, keep flows clear, and do the work to address the arguments on the other side. Be kind both to your own partner and to the competition - one of my pet peeves is cutting off your partner or acting like debate is a one person show. I will give you my full attention and respect while speaking, so you should do the same. Don't steal prep.

If you have questions, please let me know! I'd love to chat! My email is secchew@gmail.com

Dr. Danielle Deavours
Assistant professor, broadcast journalism
Samford University
Former debater and volunteer with Samford Debate Team
ddeavour@samford.edu

Education

PhD, University of Alabama, 2022, media sociology
M.A., University of Alabama-Birmingham, 2019, communication management
B.A., University of Alabama, 2008, telecommunication & film/political science

Professional employment

Samford University, assistant professor, 2022-current
University of Montevallo, assistant professor, 2020-2022
University of Alabama, PhD student and graduate research/teaching assistant, 2019-2021
UAB Medicine, communication and marketing specialist, 2016-2019
American Heart Association, state communication and marketing director, 2015-2017
American Red Cross, communication and marketing director, 2014-2015
WVTM-13, executive producer, 2011-2014
CBS 42, executive producer, 2011
CBS 8, executive producer, 2009-2011

Debate history

Former high school debater in LD, PF, policy, and extemporaneous

Things to know

At the end of the round, I find myself most comfortable voting for a team that has the best synthesis between good ethos, good tech/execution, and good evidence. I will not vote on better evidence if the other team out debates you, but I assign a heavy emphasis on quality evidence when evaluating competing arguments, especially offensive positions. Make sure you're telling me clearly what I should vote on, where you did better than your opponent in making the argument, and ways that your position is stronger. I shouldn't have to guess at why you think you won.

I am a big believer in public speaking and speaker points as a large part of the debate world. I want to feel persuaded, make sure you're connecting with me through eye contact, direct address, and voice emphasis. Don't just read the entire time, although some reading is of course acceptable.

Collegiality and respect of all people is integral to debate. If you cross the line from assertive to aggressive, you will have speaker points deducted. If you cross the line into harassment, you will lose the debate even if you logically win it.

I keep a running clock and "read along" with speech docs where applicable. Err on the side of truth, and make sure your sources are credible.

I will flow your arguments. Successful teams should interact with the other team's arguments and prioritize good line-by-line arguments. If you're not addressing your opponent's arguments, it's likely they will be able to harm your case - perhaps fatally.

Speak as quickly as is comfortable for you, but I need to be able to understand you. As a former spreader, I can understand fast speeds, but make sure you are speaking clearly and with enough emphasis for the judge to understand you. I prefer to be able to understand your speech as opposed to speed. If you are spreading, I prefer you share documents with the judge and your opponent. Speed doesn't always mean that you get more evidence in, especially quality evidence.

email: faindebate@gmail.com

‘24 State Update:

Speed < Clarity - I’ve lost hearing in my left ear so make my life easier by sending clear speech docs for every speech (don’t just arbitrarily decide to not send A2 docs you’ve compiled mid round).

Read whatever you want. I prefer theory over most args. I am not as involved with debate as I used to be so changes in meta or wording are going to go over my head.

I prefer theory to most args andgood clash makes my life easier. I am a firm believer that it is the debater’s responsibility to be both clear from a speaking perspective but also clear in what their arguments mean. Done are the days where I do the work for you and sweat over if my scim reading important philosophical texts is enough to understand complex concepts. Any phil based argument should be explained so that someone new to debate understands what it means.

Specific questions about how I judge should be asked before the round.

My threshold for voting on hidden tricks is really high now. Almost to the point where you’d have to spend 50% > in a speech collapsing to it.

I don’t disclose. I’ll write individual feedback and my email is posted if you have questions.

Hello. My name is Ella Ford, and I am a Varsity debater at Samford University. I am a second-year policy debater.

Please include me on the email chain: eford2@samford.edu

Some things to know about me:

1) My decisions are unbiased, which will be reflected in the comments I make. You are welcome to talk to me after the debate if you think I have been unfair in some way.

2) I am most likely to vote for the team that presents appropriate literature and demonstrates an understanding of the topic.

3) I lean towards tech over truth, but I will evaluate based on the situation.

4) I will flow your arguments. Successful teams should interact with the other team's arguments and prioritize good line-by-line arguments.

5) Speak as quickly as is comfortable for you. I prefer to be able to understand your speech as opposed to speed.

Feel free to email me with questions.

For policy debate,

I am sympathetic to conditionality bad arguments by the affirmative, however, if the negative spends a good amount of time in their next speech answering conditionality then there is no reason for the affirmative to bring it back up.

To be persuaded by topicality arguments, you should provide me with definitions and explanations for why those definitions make your interpretation better.

HI'm a JV debater at Samford University.

I flow every debate, make sure your arguments will show up on the flow.

INCLUDE ME ON THE EMAIL CHAIN: maddieb0329@gmail.com

Things to be aware of:

1) My decisions are always neutral and unbiased to the degree that I can make them. Feel free to email me or ask any questions after the debate.

2) I am most likely to vote for a team that uses reliable evidence and demonstrates clear understanding of the topic.

3) I have a SUPER low tolerance for rude and disrespectful comments in my presence. I don't care if it is before, during or after the debate. Be respectful.

4) I am most likely to vote for a team who interacts with the opposing teams arguments/claims.

5) I appreciate when teams keep up with their own prep time.

SpeechPreferences:

Please do not go faster than you are capable. If you are not able to clearly enunciate your evidence you need to slow down for the sake of the debate. Speed is not key to winning a debate.

Hi my name is Mary Grace Hammond and I am a member of the college debate team here at Samford University. I have debated 3 semesters in policy debate.

You can add me to the email chain: mgraceh77@gmail.com

Somethings to keep in mind

1: I expect you to be courteous to your opponents in and out of round. Assertive and confident arguments do not necessitate unprovoked in round aggression I will not hesitate to deduct speaker points for this.

2: Make sure to stay organized. Make arguments in order and make it clear what you are answering. The more organized your line by line is the more likely I will be able to follow the arguments you are making and give you points. Please do not go so fast that it hurts your coherency. If I do not understand something you are saying you will not receive points for it.

3: Keep track of your prep time. I will deduct speaker points for this if it is a repeated issue in round.

4: I will make as fair and unbiased a decision as possible. If you have a problem with the decision you are welcome to talk to me after the round or even email me after the tournament to discuss the results in further detail.

specific arguments:

kritiks:

I am familiar with kritiks but I am primarily a policy debater keep this in mind when framing your arguments. If I don't get a well explained and specific link story for your Kritik I will not put the extra mental work in for you to vote on it.

Topicality:

I need a clear abuse story that is clearly weighed against the supposed benefits of the aff. You need to clearly tell me why this argument is bad for debate as a whole and explain the implications of that. My threshold for technical skill on this argument is high so be aware of that. Voting on this may be somewhat opinion based in closer debates be aware of that risk when strategizing in round.

most regular policy arguments (counterplans, disads, and PICS) are all fair game and the most familiar arguments to me.

Hi! My name is Praise Kelly (I go by Praise) and I am a Samford novice debater. This is my second semester doing policy debate.

My email is: princesskelly1119@gmail.com

Things to be aware of:

1) I am very new to debate so I am not a fan of debate

2) I am not worried about whether your argument is true or not, I care more about how you argue it

3) Good analytics could sway my ballot

4) I would like to keep the debate fun so remain respectful of your opponents and judge=

Speech Preferences:

1) I do not care about speed more than I care about the content of your speech

2) Please speak as clear as possible

I am a volunteer judge and I competed in both Policy debate and Lincoln-Douglas debate (and a few speech events) when I was in high school. I appreciate well-developed and focused arguments. I don't mind rapid speaking as long as there is clear enunciation.

LD:

I enjoy value clashes if that is appropriate to the round.

Provide clear links in your contentions through your value criterion.

In your rebuttal be sure to provide clear key voting issues. Tell me what to judge on and why you win (do not make me have to connect all the dots for you).

Be respectful and nice. A debate should be an enjoyable exchange of ideas and not a heated conflict.

Abigail Montgomery, Samford University

5th semester debating at Samford.
Recycledearth03@gmail.com

DO NOT steal prep time!

Things that are prep time:

• Any time you are not giving a constructive, CX, rebuttal, or roadmap.
• Putting your speech doc together - including saving doc, setting up email chain, attaching it to the email, etc.
• Asking for cards outside of CX time.
• Flowing before the timer starts.

MACRO-ISSUES

Clarity: Please, please, please do not spread if you are not capable of doing so. If you aren't able to enunciate all your words, that is evidence you need to slow down. While I am all for being fast, if you are unable to do so clearly, do not make an attempt. Speed is not the key to winning a debate.

Speaker points: Points are influenced by a variety of factors, including, but not limited to: Communication skills, speaking clarity, road-mapping, stealing prep time, quality of CX, strategy, and execution.

Flowing:
• I flow.
• I evaluate the debate based primarily on what I have flowed.
• I frequently flow CX.
• I make more effort to get the arg than I do the cite or date.
• Roadmap and signpost

Evidence:
• Evaluate and compare claims and evidence in the debate.
• I don’t like to read evidence if I don’t feel the argument has been communicated to me

K: I am a policy debater, but I love the K (anything from Baudrillard to Rage). I view debate as a space for education, activism, and social justice. For K debaters, you must win your alt is better for advancing causes of social justice. The same applies for theory violations. Win that your approach and your argument deserve to win because of the impact it has.

Some things to be aware of:

1) My decisions are neutral and unbiased, which will be reflected in all comments/critiques I make. If you feel I have been unfair, you are welcome to talk to me after the debate.

2)I have a low tolerance for rude, snarky comments made in my presence. I don't care if it is during the debate or not, be nice.

3) Fairness is an impact.

4) A “dropped” argument is only true if it was explained properly.

5) If you read "death good", I will vote against you. If you trivialize human tragedy, I will vote against you. If you are racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, or sexist, I will vote against you.

6) Explain why the CP differs from the plan.

PF & LD

Use an email chain with me on it. Do not drop line by line to summarize your arguments. I'm more likely to vote for the team that interacts with the other teams' arguments to accelerate their own. I'm fine with CPs, DAs, plans, etc. if you want to run them. Impact calc is a must and make sure you collapse down to your best arguments in the summary. Don't waste time on insignificant arguments you're not going for. You must explain the warrants of the evidence you read. I will not accept the extension of a tag.

Hey! I'm Snekha. I am currently a Freshman at UAB. I served as Captain of the VHHS LD Debate Team my senior year!

Pronouns are she/her.

Email --- snekharaj.nkl@gmail.com

Please include me in the email chain. Also, feel free to email me if you have questions before the round!

General

Tech > Truth - I'm willing to vote on arguments that may not necessarily be true if they are warranted well.

Speak clearly and engage with your opponent's arguments. Tell me why I should vote for you.

Framework

Be sure to explain what your framework is, and how I should evaluate it. Framework comes before contentions, so if you have different frameworks, please debate about it.

Disads

I find a lot of disads really improbable. If you want to convince me that something leads to extinction, you’d better have a solid link chain.

Other

I will pay attention during cross-ex, but if something important is said, make sure to say it in one of your speeches too.

Please be nice to everyone, and have fun!!

Hello! My name is TJ Riggs and I'm a Junior Policy Debater at Samford University (Qualed to NDT 2022 and 2023) and head coach of the SpeakFirst debate team. I have been debating since sophomore year of high school at both the state and national level. I always try my best to avoid intervention and I will generally weigh tech over truth. That being said, I reserve the right to gut check egregiously false claims. I am a pretty active listener, so if you see me nodding my head then I am probably vibing with your args. If I look confused or unconvinced you'll probably see it on my face. I look forward to judging you!

INCLUDE ME ON THE EMAIL CHAIN: tjriggs03@gmail.com

Below is a more comprehensive list of my judging preferences:

1 - LARP/Policy

2 - Trad

3 - K's

4 - Dense Phil

Strike - Tricks

Preferences (LD):

Traditional (V/VC Framework): Traditional debate is where I got my start, and I always love hearing a solid traditional round. Framework is important, however I also heavily value the impact debate. Explicitly tell me why under your framework your impacts matter. Being able to tie your case together is essential.

Dense Phil: Eh, not really my favorite. I am generally unconvinced that intentions matter more than consequences in the face of extinction level scenarios. Not to say I won't vote on it but I probably should not be at the top of your pref sheet.

Tricks: Tricks are really stupid and bad for debate. I honestly don't even really care if your opponent just refuses to acknowledge them the whole round, I'm still probably not going to drop them for it. Go ahead and strike me :)

Adv/DA: Easy, clean debate. Please clearly announce when you are moving to the next advantage or disadvantage. If you are reading an advantage aff please read a plan, even if it’s “Plan: Do The Res”.

CP: Counterplans are always nice. Run them as you please, and I’m happy to listen. I don't love PIC's in LD but I will listen to them. 1 or 2 condo is probably ok, more than that starts to push it. 3+ contradictory options and it starts getting bad for you (NOTE: New affs probably justify infinite condo).

Theory/T: Theory and T are fine as long as it’s reasonably warranted. Topicality really has to be warranted or I’m not going to drop them for it. I think topic relevant definitions are important, I probably won't drop them because your dictionary.com definition of "the" meaning "all" probably won't convince me they aren't topical. Please make sure you are familiar with the format of Theory and T shells, don’t run them if you aren’t. I will listen to RVI arguments (LD not Policy). I will listen to Frivolous Theory because it is your time and you can do with it as you please but I won't give you the round over it, so its most likely a waste of your breath.

Kritiks: Topical Kritiks are fine. Non-topical Kritiks are not my favorite but if it is properly warranted i'll vote on it. Familiar with most standard K lit, anything fancy please explain well.

Preferences (Public Forum):

Email Chains: Up to debaters if they would like to chain.

Evidence Standard: Not a fan of paraphrasing. Let the experts who wrote your cards do the talking for you. I won't instantly drop you for paraphrasing ev, but I will read the evidence and am open to arguments from your opponent as to why paraphrasing is bad. Excessive exaggeration of what your evidence says will hurt your speaker points and possibly even your chance at the ballot.

Extending Arguments: Please argue the substance of your ev, not just the taglines. I am going to be much more inclined to buy your evidence if you thoughtfully explain why it specifically answers parts of the flow. Just saying "Extend Riggs 2021" is not sufficient. Carry your arguments through the flow, I should be able to draw a line from your constructive to your final focus and see the argument evolve throughout the round.

Speech Preferences:

Speed: I'm cool with any speed. Spreading is fine, but please articulate. If I can not understand you I will say "clear". Please do not go faster than you are capable of, many arguments can be made just as well by slowing down and sticking to the point.

Speaker Points: Clarity is key for speaks. Please be respectful to your opponent, being rude will result in points being docked.

If you have any questions about my judging style, experience, or preferences, please feel free to email me at tjriggs03@gmail.com

Name: Grace Scott

Pronouns: she/her

Email: 84gracescott@gmail.com

My name is Grace Scott. I am a junior at Samford University. I came into the debate community new freshman year, and have really been enjoying the rigor and joy of this singular activity.

TLDR:

Context is king.

Don't be an jerk, be effective.

Re: Prep time. 1) USE IT ALL. 2) Be transparent if things get funky – tech time, delays, etc

Essentials:

I value arguments that are brought up consistently and clearly.

Regarding evidence v analytics, I value clash. The context of how an argument is being made changes how I value it. For example, if someone makes a point, contextualizes it in the debate, and uses evidence to back it up, I value that over analytics no matter how good the analytics are. However, if evidence is used in a rote manner that does not engage the other side and the opponent's analytics are highly specific, responsive, and intelligent, I will prefer the analytics. It's contextual, so be specific and responsive.

I don't value hostility in cross x. Cross x is for clarifying and communicating to your opponents and to your judge. You don't need to be passive, but if the hostility is such that it doesn't move the ideas forward, you are wasting time for both of us.

When giving my RFD, my goal is to communicate how I understood the debate and give you feedback you can use to improve your debating.

To avoid my pet peeves:

Don’t leave time on the clock. It is better to stand up there in the painful silence and shuffle through your flows. This gives you time to think analytics off the fly and shows tenacity. Lay judges may appreciate the politician like appearance of composure. I want to see you practice skills that will win you debates.

COMMUNICATE WITH ME ABOUT TECH ISSUES.

I am not here to police your prep time. You are honorable competitors, and I am not a cop. I trust that when you are running prep time you are prepping, and when the timer has stopped you are transitioning to giving a speech.

If you feel like your opponents are stealing prep, feel free to call them out (respectfully and professionally). I'm cool with it. My partner and I do so regularly. A simple, "Are y'all running prep?" or "And how much time do y'all have left?" will suffice.

If you run into a problem outside your control, let me know and use your tech time (equivalent to your prep time), it’s there for a reason. Narrating what you are doing, “I’m saving the document” “I’m pressing reply all” “The doc is attached and once it loads, I will press send” are great ways to ensure transparency.

I would love to chat with you about debate, or about Samford debate. Feel free to shoot me an email if you have further questions.

EMAIL CHAIN: jsydnor@altamontschool.org -- all rounds should set up email chains before scheduled start time. I would like to be included.

--------

Former policy debater in HS and College. I come into LD from that background, and I love seeing where LD and policy are in communication with one another. While I'm familiar with K's, CP's, PICs, plan-focus debates, planless K Affs, T, Theory... I'm less familiar with some of the other arguments like high phil, a prioris, NIBs, etc. that are more well known in LD.

I am am open to most arguments, but I am unwilling to vote on arguments I don't understand enough to give a coherent RFD. The burden remains with the debater to make a sufficiently clear argument I can grasp and understand as a path to the ballot. I don't feel bad saying "I didn't understand this, so I didn't vote on it."

I don't buy into the argument division between "circuit" and "local" debate and that I should inherently discount arguments or styles because it's Alabama not a "national" tournament. Any kind of exclusion needs to be theoretically justified.

Speed: 7.5/10. Speed is fine but debate is still a communication-based activity and I'm a poorly aging millennial. Sending speech docs is not a substitute for clarity.

--------

-CP: I default sufficiency framing and will judge kick unless told otherwise. Would rather hear args about solvency deficit, perm, and issues with NB than rely on theory to answer.

-K: I think all forms of debate are great, but K's and K Affs offer something unique to the activity that enhances its pedagogical value. However, that doesn't mean I know your specific literature or that I am going to immediately buy what you're selling. I like close readings of the 1AC to generate links as quality critical work.

-K Affs: Go for it. I believe the Aff has to advance some contestable methodology beyond "res is bad, reject the res." I usually believe offense on method is the most interesting site for clash. T-USFG/FW isn't off the table as a true guaranteed generic response and can be a really strong option given the way some K teams write their 1AC.

-Theory: Not my favorite debate but I know it can be important/strategic. Go a little slower on this if you want me to get follow the intricacies of the line-by-line. I have some hesitation with the direction disclosure and wiki theory arguments are going, but I still vote on it.

-T vs Plan Affs --I believe plans have the burden to be topical, and topicality is determined by interpreting words in the resolution. If you read a plan that is not whole res then you should always go into the round proving you definitionally are topical. I generally believe analytic counter-interps (like mainstream theory debates on norms) and reasonability alone are not winning options. Has the Neg read a definition that excludes your plan? If yes, you have a burden to counter-define in a way that is inclusive of your Aff. I am very persuaded that, absent a sufficient "we meet," if the Aff cannot counter-define a word in the resolution that is inclusive of the plan then I should A] not consider the plan reasonable, even if reasonability is good, and B] no sufficient competing interpretation of the topic, which is an auto-win for the Neg. (K Affs can be an exception to most of this because the offense to T and method of establishing limits is different.)

- T vs K Affs -- Willing to vote on it insofar as you win that you've presented a superior model for debate and that voting for you isn't violent/complicit. I generally believe fairness is not an impact. I like strong answers to meta-level questions, such as Aff descriptions of what debate and proceduralism vs debate as a game/site for unique type of education and iterative testing of advocacies.

-Phil: You should assume I know 0 of the things necessary for you to win this debate and that you have to do additional groundwork/translation to make this a viable option. I've only seen a few phil debates and my common issue as a judge is that I need a clear articulation of what the offensive reason for the ballot is or clear link to presumption and thus direction and meaning of presumption.

--------

If you choose to not set up an email chain or a reasonable alternative and then waste a bunch of time during the round with, your speaker points will be capped at a 27.5. Debaters saying "I'm not spreading so we don't need to share" or, even worse, "I don't want your team to have my arguments" are huge pet peeves of mine. This activity is net better when you can look at your opponent's evidence, analyze it, and contest it. Calling for cards is not sufficient nor time conscious. Just send the doc with the evidence you're going to read in that speech before the speech.

Hi! I am so excited to be judging today. My pronouns are He/Him.

I am the father of a debater, but not one myself. I am a Lay judge and a lawyer, so I can follow basic argumentation.

I will be flowing to the best of my ability, but speech docs would be appreciated. Please weigh and do so explicitly. If you're planning to spread, it would be significantly easier for me to flow if you could add me to an email chain (wolfe.tom@gmail.com). I keep a flow but please don't assume I instantly know which card you're talking about unless you slightly explain it (or its a big factor in the round).

Clear voters please.

Good luck and have fun!

Hey, I am a graduated debater of LD.

I like to see traditional cases at novice tournaments, but I am okay with non-traditional if done correctly.

Give roadmaps before each speech.

I like to see framework debate and connection of contentions/arguments back to value and criterion.

I am not a fan of spreading (speaking extremely fast), but I will not count off if I can still understand you.

I will be keeping time, but I suggest you do, too.

Signposting is very important.

Voters help me weigh the round.