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.

Thomas Bazemore art mine name

Judging debate art my game

Speak like this the entire round

The speaker points shalt be profound

Should thou waver from the rhyme

Thy speaker points shalt drop by nine

A pencil shalt not enter my sight

If it does, I shall leave in spite

Though thy first time it shall be

An amazing debate I hope to see

For novices, while thou art new

Still must abide by NSDA Rule

You shall respect the other side

Lest you lose arguments that coincide

You shall not use profane words

Lest your disqualification be heard

Thou shalt always bring thy case

Improvising is quite the waste

Lastly I shall state MY rules

Lest you argue like a fool

Make sure thou art speaking clearly

flows and impacts I love dearly

Frameworks shalt not be necessary

But they truly help against thine adversary

Make sure thine time is within bounds

Lest I cut you off with a frown

'Tis art mine own Paradigm

Good luck Debaters! 'Tis nearly time!

Name:

Kane Burnette

Occupation:

Lawyer

Prior Experience Judging:

Minimal - I am a novice.

Philosophy:

I am a novice and do not have an established philosophy of judging debates. In other arenas, I do generally believe in the link of form and substance, and I expect that will carry over into debate as well. I doubt that I will base decisions solely on the arguments, without consideration of the manner in which the arguments are presented. Neither do I expect to be persuaded by polished delivery short on facts. I guess you might call it a balanced approach.

Warning on Speed:

I love the fable of the tortoise and the hare because, in plodding fashion, I am almost always the former (I do fall asleep quickly). Congratulations if you are more of a hare, but if that is your speaking style it may be difficult for me to keep up with you.

I prefer clarity to speed.  Every. Time. Spreading will lose points with me.

I prefer a well-reasoned argument to number of cards.  While evidence is of course a part of any argument, I particularly reward the team that can apply specific evidence to their argument clearly.

I prefer a team that listens to and responds to the other side's argument appropriately.  

I do not pay much attention to crossfire; IMO, crossfire is your opportunity to see what you can do with your opponent's case.  I want to hear you bring up blocks, refutation and/or counterpoints based on your crossfire in the subsequent parts of the round.

As a coach, I will usually be pretty familiar with both sides of the resolution.  If a card sounds suspect, I will call for it.  

SOOOOOOO TRAD.

I’m a high schooler who’s done debate since middle school :)
Respect others; any discriminatory comments will result in an auto drop and I'll contact tab

Please be nice. Debates are not fun at all to judge when people are being rude/condescending in cross and I will give you the L if you're too mean.

I'll disclose only if everyone in the round is comfortable with it. I really hate how competitive debate is, so if you don't want to hear the results, power to you and just say so!

Try to speak for the whole speech time and weigh (tell me why to prefer your impacts over your opponents') and I'll be happy

Please extend arguments!! Tell me the reasons why something happens not just that it happens, and I’m so so much more likely to vote for you. Basically, just warrant what you’re saying and extend arguments properly

Give an off-time roadmap, like "neg, aff"

I think it's my job to adapt to how y'all are debating and that's what I'll try to be doing. As long as you're erring on the side of over-explaining things which aren't problematic in any way, I'd love to vote for you! Please just debate the way you debate best in front of me

My email is Wphahn05@gmail.com if you have any questions after/before round or want to add me to the email chain

Please ask me any questions before round if you have any, and don't aggressively post-round me!

Most importantly, HAVE FUN!!!

My name is Patton Hahn. I am a 51-year old attorney who specializes in commercial litigation and bankruptcy. I graduated from Colgate University in 1994 and the University of Alabama School of Law in 1999. Other relevant work experience might be that I worked as a legislative assistant for Senator Richard Shelby for two years.

I did not debate in high school beyond in-class assignments. My son, a HS junior, has been debating since he was in 7th grade.

Public Forum:

I have extensive debate experience from many years ago (see "In General," below), but I am new, and still adjusting, to judging Public Forum.

I consider myself a tabula rasa judge by default. I will listen to any argument provided it is not outrageously offensive and is reasonably supported by evidence and/or analysis.

Please note that while I will of course listen to topicality and other theory, I also see value in policy and value based arguments. Regardless of your approach, I will look for strong analysis and development of arguments, clash, and smart choices as to arguments to go for at the end of the round.

I will flow rounds and expect clear and reliable roadmaps in advance of speeches. Accordingly, please make sure you know I am ready to start writing before you start a speech. Also, I expect signposting that is clear enough for me to understand where I should be writing during a speech, and (if relevant) where I should be looking during a cross.

If I am not following you, that will likely become apparent, e.g., I might put down my pen and hold my hands out in a pleading fashion.

Please time your own prep time and speeches and crosses. Please do so honestly and bear in mind that I may keep time as well for my own reference despite counting on your doing it yourselves.

In general:

I was a policy debater and coach for several years before I went to law school in the 1990s.

I will not penalize speed but will not vote on arguments that I cannot understand or record.

Please be respectful of others and yourselves. Debate should be a fun, educational and collegial activity.

I am a parent judge. My kid is a debater, and this is my first time judging. I never debated, nor have I watched many debates. I am a lawyer.

Please be concise and do not spread. If you do, I will struggle to understand and will most likely have to vote you down.

Please be kind to your opponents and teammate during round. Any harassment will result in loss of speaking points.

Hello! My name is Alison Hyde, and I am newer to judging debate. Please treat me like a lay judge, and help make it as easy as possible for me to cast my ballot. I am a judge who will be voting off of my flow. With that said...

My preferences:

1. Please don't spread/talk super fast- as a flow judge it makes it harder for me to catch all the great arguments that are made in the round.
2. I don't have much experience with progressive argumentation or theory, so if you do run it, please explain it well and make it an important voting issue in the round.
3. Debate lingo- I understand basic debate terms, but outside of that if you say some new term for debate the likelihood that I won't understand it is high.
4. Please include off-time roadmaps before your speeches- it helps me to keep my flows organized.
5. Please speak clearly and explain your arguments well- I usually like to give high speaks.

Looking forward to a great round!

** If you have any questions regarding my paradigm, please ask me before the round begins.

Hello!!

General Stuff:

1. Respect others; any discriminatory comments will result in an auto drop

2. Time yourself. I will also do it too, but it makes it way easier for me if you do it yourself

3. Do NOT sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand what you are saying I won't flow

4. Tell me where you are on your flow when you give your speech

5. Use up all of your speech time if you can!! You know more than you think, and if all else fails just explain your case

Rebuttals

1. Quality > Quantity; I prefer responses that are explained, especially with how it interacts with the case

Summary

1. COLLAPSE COLLAPSE COLLAPSE down on one or two arguments. Do not give me a summary of everything

3. No new arguments or evidence should be read AFTER the first summary unless you are responding to a new response in the first summary.

4. A full extension extends the warrants and impacts. My least favorite thing to do is vote for a team that doesn't have warrants, so make sure to point it out if they don't

Final Focus

1. If it's not in summary, it can't be in the final focus.

2. Paint a narrative by the final focus speeches. EXTEND the full link chain and warrants and impact.

Most importantly, HAVE FUN

My email is sophiali00112@gmail.com. Email me any questions or add me to the email chain ☺️

Hey! Hope it's going well! I'm Reva. I've competed in Public Forum for three years and have also done Congress and various Speech events.

Tech>Truth

Speed is fine but make sure to enunciate well

Please please signpost and have a off-time roadmap

I will flow anything as long as it is not homophobic, racist, or sexist

Collapse, Extend, AND Weigh!!!!

If it wasn't in summary then it shouldn't be in final focus

Please give me a reason why I need to be voting for your side

If you have any questions please ask before the round!

I don't flow cross but I expect that you are respectful during it

BQ

I mainly compete/judge PF but I have knowledge of BQ and the topic

Same preferences for PF

I like definition battles

GOOD LUCK AND HAVE FUN!!!!!

Here is my email reva.lingala1@gmail.com for evidence sharing or if you have any questions

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.

I am a parent volunteer and ex-attorney. My son has been doing debate for four years. His focus has been PF, but he's recently done some LD. I have judged PF before, but it was pre-COVID. Please watch your speed (Clarity > Speed), and don't be rude or disrespectful. Most importantly, have fun.

The most common feedback I give (for public forum) is to focus on the strongest parts of your opponent's arguments and the weakest parts of your own. If you feel that your opponent made a really good point, engage with that concept and give me a reason to discount their point. If you feel that a part of your own argument is lacking, focus on that and convince me to value that part more.

I am a philosophy and political science major at UAB. In philosophical debate (the best kind haha), we have these principles called charity and humility. Charity is to take your opponent's argument seriously. Even if they do not present it in the strongest way, engage with the strongest version of their argument. Engaging with strong arguments will make you look stronger in return. Humility is to treat the opponent as an intellectual equal. The fastest way to lose points in my book is to attempt to make your opponent 'look stupid.' I am coming in with the idea that both of you are on equal intellectual footing, and trying to change my mind on that will not work.

For speech, you have to imagine your own opponent. Be careful of straw-manning and slippery-slope fallacies. Take all the above criticisms and apply them to your imagined opponent. Present their argument strongly and you will look stronger in return.

Good luck!!

SPEAK SLOWLY and make eye contact!!!!!

Flay, but more lay than flow

As long as you're speaking at a normal rate and explaining everything simply, you should be fine.

I don't like long link chains or complex frameworks.

Time yourself, please.

Definitely truth over tech.

Signposting is good

I'm listening to cross but every important concession needs to come up in the speech after.

Things I don't want to see

Rudeness in cross

Speed

Any aggressive argument

(This wasn't made by her so ask any specific questions in round)

tech>truth: debate is a game

the best way to my ballot is to weigh. weighing is inherently comparative, warrant your weighing and compare impacts/links to each other

run whatever you want; but the more progressive your debate becomes, the more you will have to explain it to me

any speed is good, just be clear

don't give me a soliloquy for your off-time roadmap

for the love of god, give me warrants

please signpost; if I look lost, I probably am

i don’t pay attention to cross; if something important happens, then bring it up in your following speech

do not extend the entire flow

frontline responses

defense is sticky

i vote neg on presumption

if you want it in the final focus, it needs to be in the summary

if we are on a virtual platform, please don’t spread. some speed is okay, but i really value clarity when online

add me to the email chain: crhoades2002@gmail.com

My name is Dag Shapshak, and this is my first time judging.

My pronouns are he/him.

Please no progressive debate!

I do not flow cross.

You must respond to your opponent's argument, even if it does not make sense.

Time yourselves.

Do not spread.

Do not try to use up all of your time in a speech if you don't need it quality>quantity.

Have fun!

This will be my 5rd year serving as a judge (12th tournament). I have a child who is involved in debate with a focus on PF. I have judged mostly PF but also a number of LD rounds. I understand that speed is important to presenting all of your ideas on the topic, however, speed without clarity may lead to confusion or my inability to evaluate the argument. I also feel like all competitions should reflect good sportsmanship and be civil in nature. I prefer to have factual information to substantiate your case and support your argument. Please weigh in summary and final focus and make sure to present all of your arguments and analysis prior to the final focus. Finally, while many of these topics are serious discussions, remember to have fun. See you in round!

Hello!

I’m a student at UAB studying nursing, but in high school I was a varsity PF debater! The most important thing to me is clarity during the round. If you are speaking too fast and I can’t understand what you are saying, I will not be able to flow it and it may cost you the round. Also, make sure to be respectful to your opponents. I will not tolerate any racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. comments. It will cause you to automatically lose. I don’t flow cross so if your opponents bring up something you want to use, you must bring it up in a speech. Make sure to weigh the round and that you flow across your cards throughout the round. Please do not bring up new evidence in your last speech since that is unfair to your opponents.

Concerning speaker points- speak clearly and annunciate well. Don’t let your words run together when you are trying to talk fast. I also value when a person uses their whole time.

Good luck + I look forward to watching y’all debate! :)

I’m a flay parent judge and lawyer by trade.

I don’t flow cross at all- if you want me to weigh anything from cross bring it up in the next speech.

One pet peeve- Don’t try and tell me an argument is dropped that isn’t.

I weigh how you tell me to in your Final Focus.

I’ll be voting off my flow.

Speaks come from your presentation.

Tech>Truth

I don’t care how dumb your opponents argument is if you drop it, it counts- be diligent in frontlines and rebuttal arguments.

I appreciate competitiveness, and I’m fine with things getting heated. Racism, homophobia or lack of respect is an immediate ballot drop.

”The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.”

- Neil DeGrasse Tyson

Best of luck and Roll Tide.

First-time judge, parent of a PF debater. Appreciate thoughtful and substantive arguments presented at an understandable speed.

I'm a PF debater, but make sure to speak at lay speed and be clear
General Stuff:

1. Respect others

2. Time yourself. I will also do it too, but it makes it way easier for me if you do it yourself

3. Do NOT sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand what you are saying I won't flow

4. Tell me where you are on your flow when you give your speech

5. Use up all of your speech time if you can!! You know more than you think, and if all else fails just explain your case

6. I don’t flow cross

Rebuttals

1. Quality > Quantity; I prefer responses that are explained, especially with how it interacts with the case

Summary

1. COLLAPSE COLLAPSE COLLAPSE down on one or two arguments. Do not give me a summary of everything

2. weigh. weigh. weigh. start early. I expect weighing in BOTH summary and final focus. Tell me why I prefer your arguments and compare your arguments with your opponents.

3. No new arguments or evidence should be read AFTER the first summary unless you are responding to a new response in the first summary.

Final Focus

1. If it's not in summary, it can't be in the final focus.

2. Paint a narrative by the final focus speeches. EXTEND the full link chain and warrants and impact.

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

--------

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

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

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

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

--------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--------

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

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.

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

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

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

Clear voters please.

Good luck and have fun!

I am a lay judge but a former English teacher and librarian. I insist on credible sources, quality research, and a well-organized debate. Please use introductory statements, transitions, and make frequent connections between the resolution and your contentions. If I cannot follow your argument, I cannot vote for it. Weigh your impacts, tell me why your evidence is better, and tell me why your argument should win. Avoid spreading. AND PLEASE do not waste time when calling for evidence. It really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Be respectful of your opponents, have fun, and present your best self.