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 novice college debater at Samford. I have a semester of policy debating experience behind me.

I value clarity, demonstrated understanding of the topic/arguments, and well-thought-out analytics > otherwise unsupported evidence. Extension of evidence is also important to me. Also, be kind both to your own team and to the competition! I will give you my full attention and respect while speaking, so be sure to do the same.

If you have questions, please let me know! 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: fain1738fain1738@gmail.com

Speed/Clarity:You can go as fast as possible in the constructive speeches or any speech that you have written out. But i need you to slow down a ton for analytics or any non scripted lbl. My hearing is absolutely shot on my left side and spotty in general.

That is to say, if you have frontlined every possible 1ar and 2nr… send the doc

Prefs:

Tricks - 1

Phil - 1

Theory/T - 2

LARP - 3

K - 4

High theory falls between K and Phil. I really just don’t know the lit on most Pomo stuff and it’s harder to follow than Hobbes or Kant.

Some new stuff:

Defending implementation of the resolution is the same as reading the resolution as a plan. Defending the general principle of the resolution is saying you like LD because it isn't policy and you want to have a phil debate (what is ideal theory). Regardless, either side cannot get the unique benefits of the other. Policymaking offense for implementation, and then auto o/w or delinking from DA and 1NC substance. Good NC util debaters can get around the latter ;)

My threshold for no neg fiat is super high

if paradigm issues in the 2nr and 2ar don’t have something clearly float to the top, i default to substance work

i default to:

• condo good
• pics good
• tricks good
• rvis necessary
• reasonability good
• warrants necessary
• cx checks
• flex prep good
• stealing prep bad
• dropped argument with small impact > argument with clash with big impact

Weighing/Paradigm Issues: My voting record indicates that I vote neg about 60% of the time, while I think that this could be due to a potential time/strat skew when it comes to 1AR burden (bad debaters lose on aff more because they suck at the 1AR), I think that it is more often than not an issue with affirmative debaters failing to really cement paradigm issues in the 1AC and 1AR. I default to the following chain when evaluating meta framing issues: accessibility > fairness > education. RoB and RoJ end up flowing the same as fw method in phil cases, both end up netting offense via appropriate execution of advocacy, keep this in mind when weighing these (applies for policy-making ACs too).

Arguments are true until proven false. From a point of procedure, the AC has 100% validity until it is refuted. The existence of clash makes for a good debate, however, arguments are won with good analysis of clash (this can be called weighing). For substantive debate, my threshold for analytical arguments to o/w warranted args is extremely high.

Trix: Self-explanatory, if you drop 5] No 2NR responses, paradigm issues, or weighing – and don’t preclude the offensive function of trix, then you lose. For example, 1NC reads the point above, the 1AR has a couple options, A) Respond to each point, B) Up-layer tricks via accessibility shell or trix bad indicts. Obviously, there are variants of these, calling for reasonability and demanding warrants for claims is an underrated response, but generally speaking, you have to directly refute the claim or present an arg that addresses a prior issue (trix functionally bad). I will pull the trigger on any point, no matter how ridiculous it is, if you fail to properly respond in the 1AR or 1NR. Trix make life easier for judges even though they are an objectively less educational form of debate.

This came up recently in a local round I judged, having trix in the body of a card is fine for me and I will vote off of it. Obviously trix theory up-layers this and debaters who don't want to run trix theory who have me as a judge (nat circuit) will know to ask in CX for hidden trix. I think that on local circuit or in more traditional/lay rounds, this is a pretty poor strategy for an auto-ballot. It would be much more interesting for someone to read dense phil or literally any K against an underprepared opponent because at least they have a chance to respond if they're smart enough to come up with intuitive responses (in this hypothetical, they would more than likely drop the ROTB or something important and it would still be an auto-ballot from a tech perspective).

Additionally, threshold for individual responses to trix can be set up in CX. Asking about what warrants are, what they mean for the round, and whatnot can set up an A2 trix that either says "no" or "false" to every pointed response.

T/Theory: I default to RVIs necessary***, LD times are different than Policy, the topics are different, the rules are different. The majority of shells that are read in LD are ctrl-v onto a new speech doc from policy backfiles, this means that a lot of the RVI bad warrants are specific to Policy and y’all have just changed the numbers in the time skew args. Strategically speaking, in front of me, if you are running a whole res affirmative and someone reads a shell demanding you spec/run a plan, then the 1AR should hedge the entire round on T and an RVI, otherwise you’re spread too thin and can’t even begin to catch up given how broken the 2NR is. I default to CX checks. Violations must have evidence (disclosure, out of round violations), if you’re called out on not having proof, then I can’t vote for the shell (if your opponent doesn’t bring this up, I assume the violation is true).

Public Forum: Now that PF is attempting to imitate Policy/LD, I don’t really see the educational pull of the activity. If for some reason I end up judging you in a PF round, keep a few things in mind: 1. Assume I do not know any of your lingo, unspoken or spoken rules, or how the speeches are allocated.2. I am a hardcore tech LD judge, I don’t care about the validity of arguments or their reps unless I’m told to care, arguments are true until proven false, dropped arguments automatically hold more weight over arguments with clash… even if the impacts don’t o/w. You can read K’s, plans, counterplans, theory, T, or trix, I’m also receptive to heavy phil/ framework cases.

Alabama Locals ONLY:

Stealing time has become a problem on local circuit. When the timer goes off, that is time. When I say time, if you keep talking, -0.50 speaks per instance. Stealing prep is a little different, the doc needs to be "sent" within 15 sec of you calling for prep time to be done. After that, I will say "running prep" and start the clock back up. After the doc is sent, hands off the keyboard... wait for us to get it. If you violate these things and are out of prep time, I will say "over prep", opening you up to a clear violation on a stealing prep shell. The AC needs to be sent at least 5 min before the round, get to the room on time, start on time, finish on time.

I will only disclose if both debaters agree that they wish to hear the RFD. I will be recording all of my RFD's through the voice memos app on my phone, do not talk during the RFD, all questions MUST be given via email after the round.

No disclosure shells for AL tournaments, yall are both small schools - unless you have proof ur opponent is in a pay to win prep group OR is paying a private coach ;)

Hello. My name is Ella Ford, and I am a Novice debater at Samford University. I am a first-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.

Hello! My name is Madison Hackett and I'm a Novice debater at Samford University.

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

INCLUDE ME ON THE EMAIL CHAIN: mhackett@samford.edu

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 if you have any questions.

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.

Feel free to email me:mhackett@samford.edu

Hi my name is Mary Grace Hammond and I am a member of the college debate team here at Samford University. I have debated one semester 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. Any form of rudeness or unsportsmanlike behavior will not be tolerated. You can be assertive in round without being rude.

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 and do not steal!

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.

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.

Hi! My name is Abigail Montgomery and I'm a JV debater at Samford University. This will be my fourth semester debating policy.

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 am most likely to vote for a team that relies on reliable lit, detailed evidence, and a clear understanding of the topic.

3)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.

4)If you want to win the debate, prioritize interaction between flows, extending evidence, and good line by line arguments.

5) DO NOT steal prep time.

INCLUDE ME ON THE EMAIL CHAIN: amontgo7@samford.edu

Speech Preferences:

Please, please, please do not go faster than you are capable of. 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- a solid argument is.

If you have any questions, feel free to email me at amontgo7@samford.edu

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 Sophomore Policy Debater at Samford University (Qualed to NDT Freshman Year) and 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 be Tabula Rasa 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.

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 sophomore 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.

Essentials:

I value arguments that are brought up consistently and clearly, such that they show up on my flow.

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 your and my time.

When giving my RFD, I aim 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 thinking up analytics on the spot than to forfeit time. Using up every second of time is a mark of a tenacious debater.

COMMUNICATE WITH ME ABOUT TECH ISSUES.

I am not here to police your prep time. 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. I don’t like it. If you run into a problem outside your control, let me know and use your tech 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 Samford debate, or debate in general. Feel free to shoot me an email if you have further questions.

Extras: None of the following will make or break a round for me, but I do have preferences and I want to preempt questions:

Flex prep: Am I cool with you asking CX questions during prep? – No, prep is prep, CX is CX.

Flex CrossX: Am I cool with both partners asking/answering questions in a CX? – I’m ok with it. I won’t mark you down for it, but I will mark your speaker points up for not doing it. I value teams that let their partner use their CX for prep and show that they can handle any question being thrown their way.

Is using prep to send a speech doc something you care about? I prefer it. It is a norm to end prep time and then send documents, so I won’t penalize you for it. However, if you do send your docs during speech time, it will increase your speaker points.

Director of Debate for The Altamont School. Former college and high school policy debater.

EMAIL CHAIN: jsydnor@altamontschool.org

ALL DEBATE:

Open to most arguments and styles. The default for my ballot is that it goes to the team that did the best debating, and I look to the debaters to assist with a metric for how to answer that question. My judging process is usually pretty simple:

1. What framework am I using to evaluate the arguments (content and form)?
2. What impacts are reasonably in the game and to what degree does each team gain access from solvency or turns?
3. What outweighs?

-Speed: 7.5/10. Debate is a communication-based activity. Sending speech docs is not a substitute for being intelligible; you still have the burden of communicating what you’re reading. It's in your best interest to go slower in a T/theory debate if you want me to get follow the intricacies of the line-by-line.

-Disclosure/Wiki: I believe in disclosure and the wiki, but I am not a fan of many of the theory violations that proliferate (unless specified in tournament rules). I do not believe posting interps on the wiki changes anything. You're still welcome to go for all of the above.

-Ev Sharing: This is not just because "someone is spreading." Ev sharing should be a norm so that this activity which is all about engaging evidence can do the best job possible. Following the success of Policy since Verbatim boom in 2007 on this issue, email chains should be set up before the round starts with speech docs sent right before their speech. However, I'm not going to get live about it unless ongoing sharing method is clearly not working. Only the person speaking next needs to immediately send doc; next speaker should be given the opportunity to make decisions about what they're going to say.

-K: This is where I spent most of my time as a debater, but that doesn't mean I know your specific lit. I believe if the K has a framework that demands I don't evaluate Aff impacts and the Aff loses framework.... then they don't get to weigh the Aff. Saying "we get to weigh the aff because we get to weigh the aff" is not inherently persuasive given the presence of offense against that stance. The Aff must win framework or in-roads to weigh the Aff. If that's primarily justified by fairness then fairness needs to be impacted out over Neg's justification to exclude.

-Teams may read or perform whatever arguments they want regardless of circuit or opponent. The burden is on the opponent to generate offense as to why it shouldn't happen. While might knee-jerk this as a callous disposition, but any other approach is rooted in judge intervention and legislating an interpretation as to what counts as legitimate, which is seeping with bias. If the opponent requests the other team does not ________ (read "progressive" arguments, spread, etc.), the team always has the choice as to whether to respect it. Conversely, the opponent is given a stronger link on any theory argument as to why the team's practices were bad.

PUBLIC FORUM - SUBSTANCE

-I reward specificity and nuance of arguments (ex: specific democracies backsliding vs general democratic backsliding; counter specific proliferation vs generic prolif bad)

-I am not part of the cult of numbers. 25,000 people suffering from gingivitis does not inherently outweigh an unquantified risk of nuclear war because you have a number. Numbers help contextualize impacts and risk pathways, but it is not game over because a team has expert analysis that doesn't have explicit quantification.

-No new args in Final Focus

PUBLIC FORUM -- EVIDENCE

Evidence practices in public forum are atroious. Judging is in-part complicit. Here is how I go into the round thinking about evidence norms:

I default to tournament rules first, and then enforce the NSDA established protocols in the official Unified Manual (specifically pages 29-33) for what’s required in debates in terms of having cards ready for opponents and judges with proper citation. This is not a “personal choice,” even if other judges choose not to enforce it.

I am very willing to vote on evidence theory; good theory debating will have a clear interpretation (the NSDA unifed manual makes this easy), the violation, and the reason why your interpretation is preferable ("it's in the rules, judge" is sufficient, but higher speaker points for identifying educational standards for why we need your interp's evidence practices). But if you're going to do it you need to be ready to stake and stop the round on it.

The other team is entitled to any and all evidence you claim to read in a speech immediately. Yes, all, and preferably in order. If you can stake a debate on any piece of evidence you just read it is unreasonable to say that you don't have to send everything cited, especially since they can't predict what you might blow up yet. Don't hold up the round searching.

Paraphrasing: The NSDA stance is clear and codified in the Unified Manual and explained in Pilot Rules 2019-20. Paraphrasing is acceptable, but you still have to have evidence paraphrased available in card format for in-round engagement and judge decision making. In other words, It is not enough to develop consensus that paraphrasing is unfair or educational -- it must have a substantive defense of rejecting rules from the same document that sets up agreed upon speech times, topic commitment, etc. for me to even consider it a ballot issue.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS:

-I come into LD from policy, so you can run traditional case structure or multiple off-case positions that test the Aff. While I'm familiar with K's, CP's, PICs, plan-focus debates, K Affs that don't defend the res/a plan, T, Theory, I'm less familiar with some of the other arguments a priori, NIB, trick, etc. args that troll LD. The burden remains with the debater to make it into a lucid argument I can grasp and understand as offense. I can't explain what a NIB is, but you're welcome to try to explain it to me in a way that is conducive to me re-explaining it in an RFD.

-Good value framework debate presents clear offense as to why yours is the preferable model and helps you win the impact calculation debate, not just descriptions of what a moral systems looks like. No need to get lost in the sauce either. Yes, you have to have it to weigh impacts, but sometimes LDers are guilty of reading value framing that they think is "neat philosophy," but doesn't serve much purpose offensively.

-It is a hard sell to say 1AR doesn't get theory. The 1AC should not have disinvest time to theoretically preempt all potential neg strats, methods, etc.

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). Also please give me reasons to prefer your framework.

I understand that this is a progressive tournament. If you are running ANYTHING prog(plans, counter plans, theory, K's etc...), please slow down and explain it clearly.

Clear voters would also be very nice :)

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.