Hey there, my name is Luke Adams. I was in debate for 2 years for PF. I will not tolerate any racist, homophobic, sexist, or any other discriminatory/hate speech in or out of the debate.

natalielbennie@gmail.com--yes e-mail chain, but know I do not follow along with docs during the debate and do not tend to read a ton of evidence afterwards.

Debated at Samford University.

Currently coaching as a graduate student at Wake Forest.

Top level stuff:

• Do what you do best. Please do not try and change your debating to try and win my ballot-- chances are it won't help you out and you'll have less fun. I will listen to any argument and have experience running the gamut of them.
• My default position is as a policymaker and that debate is a game (a very challenging one, often with legitimate real-world applications, but a game nonetheless). That said--if you want me to evaluate the round in any other way, be clear about what my role as a judge is and present a justification for that interpretation, and I will be happy to do so

Specifics:

Framework:

• I am often very compelled by a topical version of the aff.
• Fairness is probably not an impact by itself, *update* but I find myself voting on it more often than I expect to.

Non-traditional affs:

• Go for it
• I don't think non-traditional aff necessarily need to be "topical," but I do think that the resolution ought to play a central role in your decision to run this affirmative.

Disad/Counterplans:

• Go for it
• Specificity is always preferable to generics and will probably be rewarded
• I am willing to no-link a disad
• I am often very compelled by a good overview that includes a thorough turns case analysis.
• Condo is fine and probably good. 3 CP's and a K are probably not. Cheater counterplans are probably cheating-- don't be afraid to take on this debate as the affirmative. I will vote on theory, but if there are other args you're winning, you should go for them instead.

Kritiks:

• Go for it
• Specificity is preferable to generics and will probably be rewarded
• While I may be familiar with your literature base, I will still hold you to a high threshold for explanation. I've seen a lot of k debates devolve into a battle of buzzwords with warranted analysis getting lost in the midst of it (to be fair, this is also true of a lot of policy debates). I will probably reward your ability to explain your own argument.

Tips for speaks:

• Time efficiency— Have the 1ac ready to send before the start time/the 1nc to send asap. Stands should be set up before the round. Inefficient rounds = lower speaks and less decision time, which may either help or hurt you (if that’s a gamble you’re interested in making).
• Assertiveness is not a license for disrespect or hostility.
• say smart things! Be nice!
• Make bold choices— trust your instincts.

Other stuff:

• Be kind. Be conscious of the person you're speaking to and how your tone/language choices/body language could be coming off.
• You are an intelligent and competent human being. Don't be afraid to use your brain and make some common-sense answers to arguments. I think a lot of what we say in debate is silly and could be taken down by a few good attacks, even without cards. Trust yourself to make smart arguments.
• Do not clip cards.
• Have fun! I love this activity and will put in as much effort judging your round as you did preparing for it.

Congratulations! You have the best judge in the tournament.

I am currently a coach, president and debater at the University of Maryland at Eastern Shore. I debated throughout high school at Auburn High and was president.

Let’s get to the point of how you win a round with me:

Do’s

-You can speak as fast as you like as long as I understand you. If you start to speak fast and slur your words I will stop flowing. There are ways to speed read and still be understood(I know because I do it).

-Use your prep time. There is nothing worse than not using prep time and then doing a speech start to finish and you missed half of what your opponents said. Use the time!

-I prefer facts over probability and hypotheticals. If you get up there and tell me that the world is going to end or 1 billion people die Aff or Neg I will simply start playing Monopoly Go on my phone. Let’s try and stick to the facts and research pretty please.

Don’t’s

-Don’t contradict yourself. If you got something wrong it’s better to admit it then to go back on what you said, it makes you look bad.

-Don’t say anything you wouldn’t want a class full of kindergarten kids to hear. Be kind.

Perfect speaks: Give me an interesting fact in final focus(won’t go against your time) and I’ll give you perfect speaks.

Grand Cross: I absolutely can not stand grand cross because it turns into a fussing match. If you would like- but BOTH teams need to agree on it BEFORE -the first speech, you may skip this and use it for extra prep time that is completely fine with me.

Final Note: I do allow you at the end of the round to email me websites or pieces of research that your opponent may have fabricated. If it helps you win a round then by all means do it. I will look at them before I make my decision.

I will disclose if we are allowed too, and will give critiques if you would like them.

Good luck.

& remember it’s just a debate round, don’t let us stress you out, this is coming from someone who does debate in college and let’s it stress them out. do not be like me.

blackmonkoko@gmail.com

My name is Sarah Chew, and I'm a JV college debater at Samford. I have two years 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

Hello!! I'm looking forward to judging this round with you.

My background: I debated for four years at Vestavia doing Public Forum and Congress debate and am now a sophomore Law, Politics, and Society major at Samford.

I'm pretty flexible when it comes to how you want to debate but here are just some short preferences and tips that will make the round more enjoyable for all of us:

1. Do NOT be overly aggressive. This is debate, it gets heated, its fun, I get it. But if you are out right rude to your opponent or speak in a manner that doesn't reflect the intellectual and educational atmosphere we are in I will dock your speaker points.
2. I'll keep time but do your best to as well, that just makes you look more professional. There will be a few seconds of grace period but don't steal time.
4. Evidence ethics are cool, but don't waste excessive time calling for cards unless you need it -- if you won't be talking about the evidence/quote/stats/etc. in a speech or cross let's keep it short.

I'm cool with speed but don't start spreading -- I would rather you say a few important points really clear than 50 not very important points super fast.

After I submit the ballot to tab I am more than willing to disclose after the round if it is asked for! As your judge I will do my very best to give clear and precise feedback about the decision I made and what can be improved.

Email me with questions, concerns, speech docs, or for an email chain cundiff.linden@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.

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 2 years 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.

I am a novice judge who has been judging for year and a half. I believe delivery is important but will prioritize evidence based arguments. Speaking fast, spreading, is ok as long as you are enunciating and speaking clearly.

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 speech and debate coach as well as a high school history teacher. I have no preferences in round, but I do expect each side to be respectful. Speak and debate your hearts out, but leave it in round. Congratulate each other on a great round. I will follow you as you present your argument. Mess up? Don't stop, keep going.

Big Evidence. If you are arguing something you need evidence to back it up

For the online do not speak fast since it will be hard to hear some things

If it is in person I can handle speed but just rember to enunciate your words

I do not care for crossfires. However, if something does happen in the crossfire bring it up in your next speech

If evidence is misread or miscut then I will not flow it

Please signpost so I know where you are going during your speech

If you have anymore questions just ask before the round

I'm a former debater for Samford University's policy debate team.

My EMAIL is abimckibben@gmail.com

Preferences (LD/Policy):

• PLEASE read a plan
• Love me some impact comparison
• ROADMAP (announce when you are moving from one advantage/disad to another)
• I am not familiar with LD so keep the lingo to a minimum...

Preferences (Public Forum):

• Follow general prefs below...

General Speech Preferences:

• Don't spread/speak too fast, unless you want me to miss what you're saying...(If unclear, I will say "clear" briefly)
• Impress me by extending arguments AND relating them to the opposing team's evidence/args
• Easy on the abbreviations
• Evidence quality > evidence quantity
• Be aggressive, but cordial... be unprofessional and I will dock you serious speaker points
• As long as I can tell you're giving your best effort (even if you're losing badly) you'll get a decent score for speaker points...

Abigail Montgomery, Samford University

7th 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.

I am the debate sponsor at JCIB in Birmingham, AL. I do not have personal experience as a debater and have learned what I know about debate from my students. My main request is that you do not speak at such a quick speed that it is impossible to understand what you are saying. If I can't understand you or follow your speeches, I can't vote on it! I will keep track of time on tabroom but I also encourage you to keep time yourself.

Hi! I have been debating at Vestavia Hills High School for four years now.

Evidence - If the evidence is sketch... I will call for it

Rebuttal - Signpost!!! Tell me exactly what you are doing/responding to

Summary/Final Focus - Weigh!! Signpost PLEASE! Say where you are on the flow

Crossfire - I don't flow crossfire, but if you want to tell me something that happened in crossfire, then say it in the next speech. Be respectful! Do not interrupt others when they are speaking. Yelling and screaming at each other will NOT help you win the round

Keep your own time (prep, speeches)

Have fun! :)

Debate experience- I do not have any high school/college debate experience, but I have been a sponsor in speech/debate (learned as I taught it). I have judged Congress, PF, LD, and most IE's. I have a BA in History, MEd. in Education, and a MA in History and have taught AP World, AP Euro, regular World History, Contemporary World Religions/Current Events, and regular US History 11th gr. for 19 years.

I do not go in with a bias towards one side or another and will listen to all arguments/contentions, etc. made and typically make my decision on who has convinced me of their case and who has not dropped contentions/points. I like a good clash and substance in the debate; less on theory/policy. I would be classified as more of a traditional LD and PF judge. I like students to have clear contentions and be able to back those up.

Speed: I have never judged Policy and I can see that some policy students have trickled down into the world of LD and even PF. If you spread, you better make sure your opponent can follow your argument and I can follow your argument! Using the strategy of spreading to overwhelm your opponent with information just so you can go back and say that your opponent has dropped your contentions frustrates me. If you have a solid case, there is no reason why speaking at a normal rate of speech would not be preferred.

Respect- Please be kind! I despise when students talk down to their opponents or interrupt them. Some students are still new to debate so they don't need you to crush their spirits. I want everyone to have fun and have a strong, respectful debate.

Disclosure- I do not like to disclose; please don't ask. I will give as much feedback as I can on the judges sheet.

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.

I’m a Senior at UAB studying genetics, and I was debate captain at my highschool like forever ago.

What I prefer:

Speak loudly and clearly. Emphasize important points and be organized. Please please please sign post. Don’t spread. I appreciate off time road maps. Keep your own time.

Judging

I judge based on my flow and what I can get to “flow” across it. I will use whatever framework get's brought into the round, if not i'll default to cost-benefit.

You'll do great. I've judged PF debate, but never LD or speech. I will try my best to judge fairly. Please don't be mean to your opponents, if you're overly aggressive I'll take that into consideration. Debate should never be a personal attack on your opponents.

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.

Voters help me weigh the round.

Updated for 2024 season. Yay debate! :)

If you’re at a local tournament/traditional LDer/PFer, please scroll to the bottom

Email: joeytarnowski [at] gmail [dot] com

he/him

I did policy at Samford (class of 2024), qualified 4 times to the NDT, and did 4 years of LD in high school.

I was coached by Lee Quinn, and some other judges/debaters who have influenced how I think about debate throughout college (non-exhaustively) include Brett Bricker, Erik Mathis, Ana Bittner, Ari Davidson, and Bennett Dombcik.

Debate is confrontational in nature so things sometimes getting heated is inevitable, but I really strongly dislike when teams make it a major point of their in-round ethos to be unnecessarily mean/hostile/condescending. We're all just here trying our best at a very hard activity we all (hopefully) enjoy.

General

Line-by-line, impact calculus, and evidence quality and comparison all matter a great deal to me. Well-researched and prepared strategies (regardless of ideological content) will almost always be a better choice in front of me than generic or poorly researched strategies. I think the aff should say some implementation of the resolution is a good idea, and the neg should say that the aff is a bad idea.

I generally consider myself tech over truth, but I also strongly believe that arguments start off only as strong as their initial warrants. I'm generally predisposed against arguments that are reliant on extremely sketchy/pseudoscientific evidence (i.e. climate change good), but if there's an argument you're confident you've got the goods on, go for it.

I think debate is first and foremost a game and believe in rewarding people who play that game strategically. I really enjoy when teams commit to bold strategic choices, whether that's the 1NR spending 6 minutes impact turning a 2AC add-on, a 1AR going all in on a straight turn/impact turn, or other similar things.

I will not vote on egregiously unethical impact turns like racism/sexism/other forms of bigotry good. Any other position is fair game (assuming it's well-researched and executed).

**I have some minor issues with auditory processing, so I would recommend starting off your speech at like 75-80% speed to give me a second to adjust before you build up to full speed. Clear differentiation between tags and the card body is also greatly appreciated.

Specifics

I tend to lean neg on most counterplan theory debates and usually default to reasonability and judge kick, but I'm more than willing to flip on either of those. I'm pretty unlikely to vote aff on condo bad unless something egregious happens (i.e. an extremely excessive amount of 1NC options, lots of condo planks, blatantly contradictory options, or 2NC CPs out of straight turns). I generally think most other theory debates are better leveraged as offense to help win the competition debate than as a theory argument on its own.

I would say I'm better for T debates than most and think they can be very strategically valuable. Evidence comparison is even more important to me in these kinds of debates, and I generally find specific visions of what the topic looks like under your interp (i.e. a well fleshed-out caselist) to be very helpful.

I generally am of the predisposition that the aff should defend some material implementation of the resolution. The specifics of what that means can be debated out, but I'm usually not a huge fan of strategies that just choose to ignore the resolution altogether or don't have an explanation of what their model of debate looks like and how research/competitive incentives look like under that model. Fairness is an impact, but impacts still need warrants and impact calc.

Indicts to util/consequentialism/cost-benefit analysis should also be coupled with an explanation of how I should evaluate impacts absent that framing.

Otherwise unethical/shady tactics including hiding arguments, lying about disclosure/not disclosing, etc. are not winning strategies in front of me.

---LD---

For the most part, all the thoughts expressed above should reflect most of my argumentative preferences, but I wanted to add a few LD-specific things.

I think my belief that arguments start off at the strength of their initial warrants is probably a bit more relevant in LD, as it means I’m generally less predisposed to voting on tricks/cheap one-shots/theory than most judges. Pointing out that an argument does not have a complete warrant is good and reasonability gets a LOT more compelling against theory arguments that rely hard on very marginal risks of offense/are just generally silly. I’m not afraid to vote down an argument because I didn’t think it had a warrant. Topicality has to actually define words in the resolution. I’m extraordinarily unlikely to vote on an RVI unless it's completely dropped, and even then I will be very unhappy.

I would consider myself somewhat familiar with philosophy but don’t have a deep understanding of more niche philosophies, and I’m generally not super up to date with how “phil” positions are deployed in modern debates. I would prefer positions to have a couple fleshed out warrants than reading a billion one sentence arguments and hoping one is dropped. Blippy arguments sounds to me like you’re not confident in the positions you’re reading. I know some nuance getting lost is inevitable given time constraints, but that’s also why I’d rather debaters pick a smaller number of positions and flesh them out. However, I really love when debaters actually flesh out their position and explain the nuances of how it interacts with other things.

---Traditional Debate---

This is what I spent most of high school doing, and I really appreciate good traditional debate. You should do what you’re most confident in rather than trying to read something you think I’d “like more” because I did policy (I promise you, I’d rather a great lay debate than a bad policy debate).

How I evaluate these debates is fundamentally the same as how I would evaluate any other debate, a piece of evidence or explanation doesn’t suddenly become good or bad depending on the speed at which it’s delivered. However, I think a lot of traditional debate can get caught up in what you’re “supposed” to do at the expense of substance. For example, I generally think reading definitions in the first speech is unnecessary, and often framework debates do very little and could be conceded as early as the 1NC. For the most part, the more time you're spending actually talking about the resolution, the better.

Evidence comparison is fantastic and you should do it. I would strongly prefer that you are reading cards/direct quotes from the original source and have the original source available. I also would appreciate an email chain being set up (be confident enough in your arguments that you don’t try to hide them!), but if you choose not to, you should have your evidence ready for your opponent or me to read.

Collapsing down to your best advantage/disadvantage/contention in the last speech is much appreciated, as is spending a lot of time on the aff case. A 1NC that concedes framework, reads one disadvantage they’re confident in, and spends 5 minutes reading good, case specific evidence against the aff’s contentions would make me very happy.

Experience:I did not compete in Debate in high school or college, but I have been assisting with a debate program and judging for the past four years. I usually judge Public Forum, but I have also judged speech events and Big Question Debate. I am currently in my ninth year of teaching social studies. I teach United States History and International Baccalaureate History of the Americas.

Preferences: I can follow relatively fast speaking but please don't spread.