Iowa Forensic League State Tournament
2023 — Indianola, IA/US
Public Forum Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I like a good clash debate, make sure you flow and signpost. I will vote on abuse in round if you can tell me why it’s important and prove that it was abusive or problematic. I like a more traditional debate, but I also think that Ks are important at times.
I am okay with a reasonable amount of speed, I need to understand what you are saying, and I’m too anxious to say speed if it gets too fast. I will just stop writing; if it’s not on my flow, I won’t vote on it.
Contact info: firstname.lastname@example.org
Background: I competed for Okoboji (IA) and was at the TOC '13 in LD. I also debated policy in college the following year. I coached from 2014-2019 for Poly Prep (NY). I rejoined the activity again in 2023 as an assistant debate coach at Johnston (IA) & adjunct LD coach at Lake Highland Prep (FL).
General: Debate rounds are about students so intervention should be minimized. I believe that my role in rounds is to be an educator, however, students should contextualize what that my obligation as a judge is. I default comparative worlds unless told otherwise. Slow down for interps and plan texts. I will say clear as many times as needed. Signpost and add me to your email chain, please.
High theory: 1
K: I really like K debate. I have trouble pulling the trigger on links of omission. Performative offensive should be linked to a method that you can defend. The alt is an advocacy and the neg should defend it as such. Knowing lit beyond tags = higher speaks. Please challenge my view of debate. I like learning in rounds.
Framework: 2013 LD was tricks, theory, and framework debate. I dislike blippy, unwarranted 'offense'. However, I really believe that good, deep phil debate is persuasive and underutilized on most topics. Most framework/phil heavy affs don't dig into literature deep enough to substantively respond to general K links and turns.
LARP: Big fan but don't assume I've read all hyper-specific topic knowledge.
Theory/T: Great, please warrant extensions and signpost. "Converse of their interp" is not a counter-interp.
Disclosure: Not really going to vote on disclosure theory unless you specifically warrant why their specific position should have been disclosed. If they are running a position relatively predictable, it is unlikely I will pull the trigger on disclosure theory.
Speaks: Make some jokes and be chill with your opponent. In-round strategy dictates range. I average 28.3-28.8.
Other thoughts: Plans/CPs should have solvency advocates. Talking over your opponent will harm speaks. Write down interps before extemping theory. When you extend offense, you need to weigh. Card clipping is an auto L25.
I am a flow judge. Offense should be extended in summary and the second rebuttal doesn't necessarily need to frontline what was said in first rebuttal (but in some cases, it definitely helps). Weighing in Summary and FF is key. I'll steal this line from my favorite judge, Thomas Mayes, "My ballot is like a piece of electricity, it takes the path of least resistance." I have a hard time voting on disclosure theory in PF. Have fun and be nice.
Add me on the chain: email@example.com
Hey y'all! My name is Zach Harnden, and I did Public Forum debate at Dowling Catholic High School. I have won 4 state titles, qualified to National Tournament 3 times, and I now debate for Simpson College in Parlimentary Debate and Public Forum. I am majoring in Political Science and minoring and Economics. I love football, fishing, and Arnold Palmer.
TLDR; Debate should be fun and educational. If it's neither of those, I probably won't be engaged.
-I’m good with both lay and tech.
-If your evidence is important to my decision, I'll ask for it, but otherwise, just don’t paraphrase
-Keep track of your own time, if you abuse it, I’ll doc you.
Theory: I never ran it, and I'd probably prefer you debate the topic. But hell, if you think there is an egregious violation of your rights going on in the debate, then you'd better be running or at least mentioning theory.
Online: IDC about cameras, just make sure I can hear you. My camera will be off, and I will be flowing. I am ready, so don’t ask. :)
I’ll give the most speaks to the best speaker, but if that’s not good enough for ya, then here:
If you make proper and funny references to any of the following I will give you auto 30 speaks.
-Roasting Christopher Pierson
if you don't use any prep
Howdy, I'm Anthony Holm, I am a third-year out, currently a Junior at the University of Iowa
Disclosure is cringe, don't read it, and I won't vote for it.
If you are relying on your opponent being unable to engage with your argument as a strategy that will make me sad.
I don't care how you present yourself, you can wear whatever makes you comfortable and you can sit or stand or fly.
I don't want to intervene, please make it clear what my evaluative mechanisms are, I.E. the tools I should be using to evaluate the round.
I'll assume some stuff like conceded arguments are true, AC is 6 minutes, etc. Unless you make arguments about why I shouldn't.
For Novice Debate:
This changes a lot of my paradigm, I think debaters should be focusing on the fundamentals at this stage. So don't read tricks (a prioris, Nibs, friv theory) I will ignore these arguments.
- If you read a K or read theory, please run it correctly. I'm very happy listening to Novice debaters read advanced arguments but make sure you do it correctly although during the first topic, am going to have a low bar for responses (this does not mean novi get to ignore these arguments, I'll be upset if I think you're trying to take advantage of my leniency)
Everyone gets above a 29 unless you do something that makes the space exclusionary or toxic cause then I'll just give you average speaks. If you do something extremely out of line you get a 25.
Do whatever you want, T-Pose, Levitate, Ascend, I do not care just make sure your opponent can hear you and so can I
I probably won't pay much attention to the actual content of CX cause I'll be writing comments on the previous speech as well as CX strategy, so if you're gonna call back to the content of cross remind me
I want a fun cross, if things get heated I'll pry be paying close attention. cross-ex is my favorite thing in Debate so if you get going, please be confident, be aggressive, and get the concession or slip-up you need. So long as you are not personally attacking your opponent or being needlessly rude then you are fine.
do it, just send the email chain if you're opponent asks.
Probably my favorite kind of debate, determines what offense is / what impacts are/ how to weigh. The biggest mistake in framework rounds is just a bunch of conceded preclusion claims with no interaction, I’ll attempt to resolve these by doing work myself which I don’t want to do. Furthermore, if you just read a bunch of straw man dump arguments against a framework (like most people do to Kant) it will make me sad.
-TJFs: fine read them if you want.
-Skep Triggers: Funny, I always enjoy the new ways debaters articulate them.
Do not read skep as your primary argument, if skep comes up in round it should only be as a result of framework issues triggering skep, I.E. both debaters defend consequentialism but consequences fail is also read.
Impact justified frameworks:
These make me sad :( read them if you want but be ready to defend them.
I don’t default on any paradigm issue, they should be read in the round, if you do not read fairness/ed./whatever is a voter I will not evaluate theory as a voting issue.
- Also, I’m fine if the counter-interp text is just “I’ll defend the violation” or “converse/inverse of their interp”. I will never “gut check” against theory args.
- Personally, I think RVI's are good, competing interps is true, and theory is drop the debater. I'll do my best to keep these biases out of my decision though.
- if it turns out you had some masterful strategic plan that required you to not read paradigm issues (I've done that before) then I'll be happy if the strat works.
Is fun I like it, a lot of the same rules for theory still apply
- Nebel T confuses me so be clear about it.
I'm fine with minimal extensions, "extend the interp" with a very fast explanation would be fine I.E. "Extend the interp NIBS are bad"
I like them, read them more. They are probably necessary for certain affs.
- I'll listen to OV arguments like "spikes are ableist" but I don't think these arguments are very persuasive given that most under-views will preempt these.
I think Ks are really interesting and can have some good debates, but I do have a few problems with them
- don't be purposefully vague about the K in order to take advantage of your opponent's misunderstanding, this will really upset me. So If you do not read a clear explanation of the K, I will not vote on it. of course, if your opponent straw mans it a bunch I'll be much more lenient.
- ROBs-ROJs should have normative justifications, I need clear warrants as to why our decision calculus ought to be based on the issues the K talks about
- I want to see the K debater substantively respond to the AC/NC instead of making very broad overviews.
- Read Non-T aff's all day long I think they can be great, just make sure you are very clear about them.
is cool, it's not my cup of tea so I don't do it much. But it's strategically beneficial so LARP all you want.
- if you make some wacky argument like spark or dedev you'll be very cool.
If you have any questions just ask me. if you're trying to do prefs, shoot me an email.
Background: I was a PF debater from 2014-2016 on the local and national circuit. I am a recent graduate of the University of Iowa (Go Hawks!) and am pursuing a career as an actuary.
- In the rebuttal, the team which speaks second should both attack the opposing team's case and defend their own case against attacks by the opposing team.
- Please collapse the round in the second half. If your opponents decimated one of your arguments and you don't have adequate defense, don't waste your time trying to prop it up. The most successful debaters are those who understand the context of their round and can pivot to frame the round around elements they are winning.
- Essential defense should be extended in the first Summary.
- If something is not mentioned in the Summary, it will not be flowed in Final Focus.
- I really appreciate voters in Summary and Final Focus.
- Weighing makes my job a lot easier. If no weighing occurs, you lose control of the round.
- I do not flow crossfire. If something important happens in cross, tell me in a speech.
- Organization: Please signpost whenever possible. Good organization helps me make a fairer decision and usually results in a better round of debate.
- Speed: I can handle some speed, but remember -- this is PF. Your clarity and eloquence will be reflected in your speaker points.
- I prefer that evidence be initially introduced by direct quote, but if you must paraphrase, please ensure you represent the evidence accurately with regard to its meaning, intent, and context. In later speeches, feel free to (accurately) paraphrase but make sure all evidence is connected to an author or organization for flowing purposes.
- After frequently dealing with teams using inaccurately paraphrased evidence during my time as a debater, I have zero tolerance for bad evidence. I will call for evidence at the end of the round if there is any question as to its credibility. Please have evidence either as a cut card or highlighted in a PDF. If I conclude that evidence has been misrepresented, I will drop it from the flow and drop speaker points as appropriate.
- While I am open to any argument, I am not very familiar with how to evaluate arguments that deal with Ks/theory/etc. You will have to work harder to explain to me why I should care.
- Creative/unexpected arguments can be fun, but they still need to be well-supported, well-warranted, and impactful to be effective.
- I will do my best to keep time, but please time yourselves as well to keep everyone accountable.
- Please be respectful to your opponents. The inability to do so will be reflected in your speaker points.
- Please add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Feel free to ask me questions about what you read here! Debate is an educational activity, and adapting to your audience is an important skill that you will utilize for the rest of your life.
I strongly believe that debate should be an inclusive space. As long as you keep it that way, you can do whatever you want. Below is a laundry list of "things that might irritate me on any given day" and general preferences, but feel free to change them by blowing my mind.
My favorite rounds are when debaters engage in each others' args substantively, whatever format that may take. I flow your speeches straight down, which means collapsing, weighing, big picture analysis, and explict comparison will get you far. I give higher speaks to students that read creative positions and clearly know a lot about whatever they choose to read, be it Lacan, Ripstein, permissibility, the topic [gasp]. I also don't keep up with the trendy norms or lingo so break things down for me/don't assume I know much about anything.
- It's been a year or so since my last round so like 80% of your top speed would be ideal. Especially if it's early.
- I'm cool with anything, be it reasonable or for strategy. The former is subconsciously more persuasive but I really don't care.
- This is how I debated, and I feel comfortable evaluating these rounds.
- I think the less-sketchy (sketchy = hidden, one sentence, shifty about it in cx, warrantless, etc.) deployment of things like contingent standards, skep triggers, permissibility, etc. can be cool.
- AFC hurts my soul. That includes ABC, AEC, APC, and whatever else you youngfolk have come up with these days. I'll vote on it, but I'd prefer not to hear these debates.
- Sure. I love and am always impressed by great, topic-specific prep
- I DON'T UNDERSTAND LINGO. I can't make that clear enough. If you do the whole "the internal link of the inherency perms the...." I won't follow it and thus not give it any weight.
- Know what you are talking about. Don't run out-there positions for shock value without having a clue what you're saying. That said, I love a well run K. High speaks if it makes me personally intrigued. That goes for all positions.
- I don't really pay attention. This is for you all. Make it apparent if it's something I need to pay attention to. Like throw something at me.
- Speaks given out based on strategy. I average a 28. I try to make them relative to the rest of the pool.
- I couldn't care less what you're doing (sitting, laptop, walking around the room on your hands while you read the NC, playing death grips for the first 4 minutes of the AC, etc.) as long as you're respectful.
- I will dock speaks if you're incapable of putting docs on a flash drive in a whatever I arbitrarily deem a reasonable amount of time.
- No-prep 2ars and speeches where you sit down early DO impress me. If you can win easily and save me time, I will reward you well.
- I'm more lenient on aff extensions and extensions of dropped args, but I want at least "extend contention 1 jones card that says living wage closes wage gap because X".
- Don't tell me to "gut-check" something. Make arguments.
- I don't want to hear violations I can't verify or new shells in the 2ar or flashing theory or anything of the sort.
- I have absolutely ZERO tolerance for the teams that play fuckfuck before outrounds with disclosure of the aff, the flip, etc.
- I'll answer questions after the round for sure, but there will come a point where I'm like "meh better luck next time I need to go".
I studied Environmental Science and Political Science in college, worked in Environmental Health and Protection, and I have an EMT certification. I debated LD in high school, and I have experience judging both LD and PF. Keep it interesting
Pre-req: I will not vote on any case arguments addressing sexual violence, rape, or suicide/suicidal ideations that were not preceded by a pre-round trigger warning. If, upon hearing this trigger warning, the opponent requests the argument not be made and that request is denied, I'll be very receptive to theory arguments about why I ought to vote against you based on the introduction of that issue.
I believe that problematic arguments are problematic whether the opposing team points them out or not. I believe that this is not a space where any argument can be made. Problematic arguments at minimum impact the people in the round and can impact discourse outside of the round. I want the opposing team to point out problematic arguments and abuse. However, arguments that promote sexism, racism, or other forms of hate will not be persuasive for me and are likely to result in a down ballot.
Style: I am one of those judges who responds very negatively to rudeness, disrespect, and offensive language
Speed: I don't like speed. Learning how to talk fast has no post-debate benefit, so I do not support it as a strategy in an educational debate round. I can follow fast talking, but if you are spreading, then I will put down my pen and stop flowing. If I stop flowing, it probably means I am confused; either because you are going too fast, or I don't understand what you are saying.
Style: I need to have a weighing mechanism in PF debate. I need to know how to decide who won the round, otherwise I will get very frustrated. I do not want to decide using my own metrics, I want YOU to tell me how to judge the round. I will be using this weighing mechanism as I look at my flow to decide who won the round.
I tend to be a flow a judge. By that I mean that I flow and will be following the flow to see who has the strongest arguments at the end of the round.
Evidence This is also very important to me. By that I mean that I need evidence that is clearly cited and explained. Actually READ me your evidence, don't just give me your summary of the evidence. Analytical arguments are great, and I will vote there, but when disagreement is happening about what may or may not be true about the topic, I would like to hear evidence. This should also connect back to your weighing mechanism.
I also like to hear evidence in the rebuttal. If you are responding with an analytical argument to an argument that has evidence, I need you to do the work of explaining to me why your analytical argument is sufficient to off-set the argument with evidence. You can do this by telling me that sense the argument doesn't make sense/has a fallacy, then it doesn't stand even with evidence. Or you can make an analytical argument about the evidence itself. Otherwise, I am likely going to still prefer the argument with evidence.
Please call for evidence in a timely manner. Please use an email chain or the evidence sharing that Tabroom provides. I want to be included on the email chain.
If there is conflict about evidence, I need you to do the work of telling me why I prefer your evidence over your opponent's evidence. Just telling me, "It post dates," is not sufficient. What has changed since that date? Why is your source more reliable? Otherwise, I will just get frustrated.
If your opponent asks for evidence, per the NSDA rules, you need to provide them with the cut card and the full article in a way that allows everyone to see and read the evidence. I expect to be included in any email chain, so I can also see the card that was called for. I also expect this exchange of evidence to happen promptly (less than 30 seconds) when asked.
If there are questions about the validity of the evidence or the way evidence is being used, you are likely to lose my ballot.
On a related note, I do not believe that everything needs to be quantified. Just because numbers cannot or are not put to an impact, does not mean that it cannot be weighed. This is ESPECIALLY true when it comes to impacts to human beings. I do not find the argument, "we don't know how many people will be impacted," persuasive.
Prep Time: I expect competitors to keep track of their own time. I will also be keeping track of prep time. This will be official time used. If you use all of your prep time before the end of the round, I expect you to start speaking promptly. That means you should take no more than 10 seconds to begin your next speech.
Background: I am a math teacher, so if you are going to throw around math terms and mathematics, you need to be certain that you know what you are talking about and are correct. As an example, there is a difference between exponential, linear, and geometric growth, so make sure you say the right one.
I have debated PF 4 years in high school, 4 years of college PF, 4 years of NPDA/parli in college.
I am not a LD debater, so I have minimal understanding of the theory and technical arguments that exist within LD. You can absolutely still make those arguments, but you need to make sure that you are explaining those terms, otherwise I will be lost and frustrated.
I am happy to give you feedback after the round, if you find me. :)
I do not want to be on the e-mail chain.
You are likely to run into me at Iowa tournaments. I nearly always judge LD. (I judge P/F and Policy on rare occasion. Following my LD paradigm in those events would serve you well also.)
Please keep in mind the following three things, which apply to any form of argument you may consider using:
1. Tell me what to prefer.
2. Tell me why to prefer it.
3. Tell me that you did what I should prefer (at least better than your adversary).
Although I have been around LD since the earth cooled, I have no views about how LD should be. I am not tied to a historical ideal of the activity. In my view, the nature of the activity is to be resolved by coaches, competitors, and competition committees. My job is to evaluate the round that is presented to me, as it is presented to me. I evaluate rounds based on their internal competitiveness, not against some external standard of goodness.
I have no default "positions" or evaluative mechanisms. I will listen to any type of argument. If there is weighing to do, please do it. Since this is a competitive activity, I must award a ballot to someone. If there is no reason to affirm or negate at the end of the round, and I am left to my own devices (meaning neither competitor has done a good job of attending to the three items above), I will penalize the debater who made the biggest strategic error by assigning that debater the loss. Since this is a competitive activity, I will be constrained by any instructions on the ballot (such as instructions regarding burdens, speaker point allocations, etc.).
I am fairly generous with speaker points, tending to cluster around a 27.5 on the customary 1-30 scale. To ensure I remain generous, (1) be smart, (2) be authentic, (3) be decent to your adversary, (4) be clever, and (5) keep trying and pressing your positions until the timer goes off (even if you think you're losing).
Background: I have degrees from Baylor, Iowa, and Lehigh. I have been a practicing attorney for many years and am currently general counsel for the Iowa Department of Education. My favorite things are running, spicy food, caffeine, collecting passport stamps, and Luka Doncic.
I did primarily PF for 4 years and now coach. I studied poli sci and IR and work in government just as a bit of background. I'm a very average flow judge.
add me to the email chain email@example.com.
I look to framework, then weighing to see where to vote. If neither occur, I look to what's left in final focus and whichever team has the cleanest link into their impact. I default to probability, then scope. Strong defense is important to me. I’m open to why I shouldn’t do any of this though.
Flip and get ready as fast as possible, don't wait for me to get to the room.
Don't shake my hand, pre flow before the round.
Speed: I can keep up pretty well but I don't really want to. Spreading 4 contentions is not a sustainable strategy. Maybe that's just my own bias but you gotta adapt to your judge. Make accommodations if your opponents ask you to, this includes not going fast. Gotta be able to beat them no matter how you have to debate ????♂️
Evidence: I expect all evidence to be in cut card format and ready to see when asked in a few minutes at most. If it is misrepresented I'm docking speaks, but it must be called out in a speech for me to strike it from the flow. Non-highlighted cards are a BIG no. (note: cards can be abused, if your opponents string together words and phrases to make a new argument, that is a legitimate reason for me to strike it from the flow)
You can paraphrase if you have cut cards but properly explain each argument, I will not get blippy responses on my flow, and I shouldn't have to. Explain your arguments.
I will and expect other teams to call out others noticeably prep stealing, please don't do this
General Preferences of Arguments
quality over quantity (collapse on your offense and defense)
Frontline at least turns in 2nd rebuttal, anything in final focus needs to be in summary, besides sommmee weighing ig
I love tons of warranting and smart analytics. I love good knowledge of your evidence and real-world stuff and making up sound arguments on the fly that you can defend well.
I love when you make things on the flow interact with each other, explain any links between contentions, in depth weighing, concede a delink to logically get out of turns, find a contradiction, etc.
Tell me why I should prefer your analysis/warrant/evidence, etc. Resolve the clash!!
I'll listen to and vote off anything BUT I strongly prefer substance debates. Slow down and explain everything more, I have a hard time properly flowing and evaluating these less familiar and easy to flow arguments. I require sending speech docs for these.
If there's legitimate abuse I kind of understand how to evaluate theory, but probably not the way you'd like me to. I'm kind of familiar with K's but tbh I’m biased towards substance, those are the rounds I want to judge unless one team's being horrible.
I'm open to arguments about why I shouldn't prefer substance.
Speaks: I range from 27.5-29.5, nothing crazy. More commonly 28-29, just do what I talked about above and you'll be fine.
I love being asked questions and helping you learn!!
Important Stuff is Bolded
My name is Andrew Shea (he/him). You can call me Judge Shea, Andrew, Fire Lord O’Shea, whatever floats your boat.
I am pursuing a major in history and a minor in international relations at the University of Iowa. I am working towards a phd in transnational labor history and relations.
I have a cat named Haywood after Harry Haywood. He is amazing and cool. Ask and I am happy to show pictures.
My email for contact is: firstname.lastname@example.org
I competed at John F Kennedy High School in CR IA. I was coached by Jesse Meyer who remains a large influence on me today.
I judge mainly LD and PF. I was mostly a K debater and did okay throughout my career. I generally understand most arguments. My paradigm breaks down into prefs/speech paradigm, in-round debate behavior, and in-depth LD/PF prefs. Please ask questions if you have any. I am always looking to improve.
LD Cheat Sheet
3 Trad* or Policy/LARP
5 Tricks/Strike (don’t know enough to competently judge)
*I think trad is a good debate format and can be competitive/clash with circuit debate. I put it higher up to tell trad debaters they can pref me without concern.
**I won’t vote you down because you run theory. I just have a lower threshold for response to theory. For example I don’t think you need to run a counter interp or RVIs to respond but if you do, you should do it well.
Two things of note:
- I am ok with spreading if you ask your opponent before round. Please do this in front of me in-round. If you did not ask and your opponent runs theory/disability arg on why spreading is bad I am more liable (not guaranteed) to drop you. That said if no objections are raised from 1ac/NC-1NR/1ar I will assume there is no issue and be less liable to vote down spreading
- I am pro Flex Prep but you have to ask before round. I prefer this to avoid someone being denied the opportunity to use it in round. In elims I go with the majority judge view on flex prep.
PF Cheat Sheet
1 Trad PF
2 Critical Args
I am basically fine with anything in PF but theory annoys me. I really prefer normal PF but I won’t mentally check out if you don’t.
See above LD prefs for spreading/flex prep
I am by no means an experienced speech judge but I have coached the very basics and I did exempt and spontaneous in high school. I like to see confidence, good use of the space in a room, rehearsed body movements (don’t just keep your hands in one position unless that is your character's thing for something such as a HI), and just do your best.
Unless explicitly prohibited by tournament rules let me know if you want to give hand signals for time. I would be happy to do them.
Ask and Advocate: Debate should be a friendly and welcoming space. To that end, ask and advocate for yourself. If you have an issue or a question please ask. If you feel harmed in some way or see something that bothers you, advocate for yourself. I am happy to facilitate in any way I can to make debate a better space for all. In no way should gender, disability, or class make you feel unsafe in this space.
Assertive and Polite: It is ok to be determined and assertive in a debate round but never belittle your opponent or be snarky to them. Everyone here is a person first and foremost along with being a student. Debate is a pedagogical game and I find it vastly more useful to educate rather than to belittle someone for not understanding or for making a "bad argument" that said, you should absolutely seek to control a round and narrative. Raised and passionate voices are ok but avoid yelling or taking a dismissive, arrogant tone. Be very cognizant of that difference when debating women/non men debaters, sexism is all too prevalent and unacceptable in the debate space and such dynamics do influence my judging particularly in the way I give speaks.
On Spreading: I am not anti-spreading. While I don't think it is a good norm for debate I do understand that it is the default and if everyone is ok with it I will be too. I prefer that people ask before round because I have met several debaters who have had disabilities that prevented them from spreading. I would like debate to realize spreading should be moved away from but because I don't run a camp or have money I at least want to make the space more accessible to different debaters in lieu of some larger change.
As a judge I will: provide you with in-depth feedback and always explain to you why I interpreted something the way I did. I will not always be right and make mistakes but I will do my best to explain my reasoning.
Do everything I can to answer questions or redirect you towards resources who can do it better
Provide a safe environment for debaters as someone in the community who cares and who will listen.
LD Prefs in-depth
Since I mainly judge LD here is more in depth thoughts for those who care to read them:
K debate: I love K debate. My political beliefs lead me to love hearing Parenti, Gramsci, Lenin, Mao, Marx, Losurdo, Fanon, and many others along the communist and decolonial based lines. As such I will be happy when I hear cap bad, china isn’t the devil, palestine will be free, etc. That said I familiar with many other authors and I am generally friendly towards hearing any new arguments and I am happy to learn about anything new.
Phil: I know some but not alot. I would love to learn more and therefore feel free to run anything just explain it well.
Trad: I think it can and should endeavor to be more competitive with circuit debate.
Policy/Larp: I don’t necessarily have a problem with it, sometimes I just find it boring. Honestly I have grown to like it more because I actually do enjoy hearing about the resolution.
Theory: I won’t vote someone down because they run theory but I firmly believe that theory is often used in a way that makes debate poor and ruins the quality of argumentation. I think it harms accessibility and as a result my threshold for response is lower. While I feel like I have a decent grasp on theory debate there is a greater risk of me not fully comprehending your argument as I haven't attempted to immerse myself in the mechanics due to my dislike.
What I look for in a good LD round
Overview: Like a real overview which represents the interactions that happened in the round with a narrative. Challenge yourself to have it be more than a summary of what your case is.
Weighing: Like actual weighing. Extending your impact is great but you need to explain why your impact should be valued more compared to your opponents
1nr Card Drop: I see people spread as fast as possible through their speech and then just extend whatever their opponent did not respond too and think they won the round. I need some weight and explanation of the warrant from arguments to vote on them. When there isn't, my threshold for responding or weighing them is lower than the arguments you developed. Developing arguments is good and makes me value them more than your 17th apriori which has “big” implications in the round because your opponent conceded it.
Truth vs Tech: I'm more tech. Basically that's it.
Tabula Rasa: I'm not. I will not tolerate racist, sexist, ableist, classist behavior. I also have strongly held beliefs of what debate should be to get better. That said if I think such behavior has occured I am more likely to stop the round and refer the issue to tab. What I won't do is vote someone down because your K says they are literally the devil for not being topical. I am more receptive to the argument that the argument is some "-ism" not the person. We are learners here and should educate and build people up.
Teach me something: Honestly this goes for debaters, coaches, and other judges. I want to learn and improve and be a positive force in the debate space. I love learning about new theories and concepts. As such it may be helpful to take the time to explain the mechanics of an argument without the internal jargon to maximize education.
PF in-depth prefs
Trad pf vs Circuit pf: It's weird that there is now a difference between trad and circuit/prog PF debate and I am not exactly a fan that its come to this. That said I prefer normal PF rounds over critical arguments as I don't think the format lends itself to progressive.
Theory: See LD prefs for opinions on theory.
Evidence: My evidence standards are a bit higher in PF due to frequent bad paraphrasing. I will likely review cards which are deemed critical in round during prep time. If I find that the card itself is misconstrued I will be annoyed and have a lower threshold for response to the arguments that rely on the card. That said I think there is a difference in making an argument which misconstrues the card rather than the card itself being misconstrued. That's just debate.
That's all folks.
Hi, I'm Grady!
I started doing debate in middle school and competed in policy, LD, and public forum. I was away from debate for awhile and have gotten back into judging this year, primarily in PF and LD.
I prefer substantive engagement in whatever form you prefer. I prefer line by line argumentation and I look for some kind of framework by which to evaluate a round.
I have the most experience in framework-heavy debates. I am open to counterplans, DAs, etc. as long as you avoid overly-using debate jargon when explaining the structure of the args. I'll happily evaluate a critical round, but don't assume I have a background in the lit you're reading and make the clash explicit.
I don't take myself too seriously; if you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them before the round. Run whatever you have prepared and be nice to your opponent.
I am a newer judge. I don't like fast speaking if its to hard for me to follow. I prefer big picture analysis. and quantification. Please sign post and don't spread I need to be able to understand you. Please don't say anything offensive or mean.
In high school I was a policy and public forum debater at Olathe Northwest in Kansas. After high school, I competed in college level Lincoln Douglas, IPDA, and public forum debate. My partner and I went on to win a PKD national championship in IPDA. Due to my experience in debate I would describe myself mostly as a gamesplayer. This means I will believe what you say until your opponent refutes it and vice versa. I place structure and tech almost above all in the debate. Check your framework and your impacts!
Besides the obvious hateful speech and arguments, mostly any arg, being a K or a performative speech, is okay with me.
If you are speeding and your opponents ask you to stop, I will also ask you to stop. Please do not use speed as a weapon.
Err on extending the cards and contentions that your opponents have dropped. I am a little old-school when it comes to this extension theory but its the way I was taught and I believe it is good practice.
I hate judicial activism. Please use your framework and explain why you win. I will not do the arguing for you, if you havent said it, it doesnt go on the flow. I will not flow arguments you do not make no matter how much I want to make them for you or no matter how much you claim you made them in your constructives.
If you have anything more specific please do not be afraid to ask before round.