For email chains: danbagwell@gmail.com

I was a Policy debater at Samford / GTA at Wake Forest, now an assistant coach at Mountain Brook. I’ve increasingly moved into judging PF and LD, which I enjoy the most when they don’t imitate Policy.

I’m open to most arguments in each event - feel free to read your theory, critiques, counterplans, etc., as long as they’re clearly developed and impacted. Debate is up to the debaters; I'm not here to impose my preferences on the round.

All events

• Speed is fine as long as you’re clear. Pay attention to nonverbals; you’ll know if I can’t understand you.

• Bad arguments still need answers, but dropped args are not auto-winners – you still need to extend warrants and explain why they matter.

• If prep time isn’t running, all activity by all debaters should stop.

• Debate should be fun - be nice to each other. Don’t be rude or talk over your partner.

Public Forum

• I’m pretty strongly opposed to paraphrasing evidence - I’d prefer that debaters directly read their cards, which should be readily available for opponents to see. That said, I won’t just go rogue and vote on it - it’s still up to debaters to give convincing reasons why that’s either a voting issue or a reason to reject the paraphrased evidence. Like everything else, it’s up for debate.

• Please exchange your speech docs, either through an email chain or flash drive. Efficiency matters, and I’d rather not sit through endless prep timeouts for viewing cards.

• Extend warrants, not just taglines. It’s better to collapse down to 1-2 well-developed arguments than to breeze through 10 blippy ones.

• Anything in the Final Focus should be in the Summary – stay focused on your key args.

• Too few teams debate about evidence/qualifications – that’s a good way to boost speaks and set your sources apart.

Lincoln-Douglas

• I think LD is too often a rush to imitate Policy, which results in some messy debates. Don’t change your style because of my background – if you’re not comfortable (or well-practiced) spreading 5 off-case args, then that’s not advisable.

• If your value criterion takes 2+ minutes to read, please link the substance of your case back to it. This seems to be the most under-developed part of most LD rounds.

• Theory is fine when clearly explained and consistently extended, but I’m not a fan of debaters throwing out a ton of quick voters in search of a cheap shot. Things like RVIs are tough enough to win in the first place, so you should be prepared to commit sufficient time if you want theory to be an option.

Policy

[Quick note: I've been out of practice in judging Policy for a bit, so don't take for granted my knowledge of topic jargon or ability to catch every arg at top-speed - I've definitely become a curmudgeon about clarity.]

Counterplans/theory:

• I generally think limited condo (2 positions) is okay, but I've become a bit wary on multiple contradictory positions.

• Theory means reject the arg most of the time (besides condo).

• I often find “Perm- do the CP” persuasive against consult, process, or certainty-based CPs. I don’t love CPs that result in the entire aff, but I’ll vote on them if I have to.

• Neg- tell me how I should evaluate the CP and disad. Think judge kick is true? Say it. It’s probably much better for you if I’m not left to decide this on my own.

Kritiks:

• K affs that are at least somewhat linked to the resolutional controversy will fare the best in front of me. That doesn't mean that you always need a plan text, but it does mean that I most enjoy affirmatives that defend something in the direction of the topic.

• For Ks in general: the more specific, the better - nuanced link debates will go much farther than 100 different ways to say "state bad".

• Framework args on the aff are usually just reasons to let the aff weigh their impacts.

Topicality:

• Caselists, plz.

• No preference toward reasonability or competing interps - just go in depth instead of repeating phrases like "race to the bottom" and moving on.

Hey, I'm Catey Rose!

- I am pretty trad and I really do not like spreading, or theory. Plans are fine, just make it clear. Disads that lead to extinction should have a strong link chain!

- Collapse!! Give Vorters!! Make sure you weigh impacts and answer framework!! :)

- I don't care if you stand, sit, or whatever in round. I am good with most speeds, I have a background in LD, BQ, and congress but I do prefer slower talking.

- I believe debate is a training field-- it has a competitive nature as a game, but should remain ethical and truthful as an educational activity.

- You guys are gonna do great!

For Pratt:

1) Make sure you read card names! If you don't I have no proof that anything you are saying is factual. Please read your sources, or at least put them in your cases!\

2) I will disclose if I can, but if I can't I will put some more in depth feedback in private comments in tabroom & RFD. All criticism is constructive, and some of the best stuff I've learned came from judge feedback! It's to make y'all better, NOT make you feel bad.

3) I'll be more than happy to answer any questions after the round is over.

Primarily, I am a coach and educator. I have always felt strongly that debate is a contest of ideas and communication skills. I have no preferences in the round; however, if you speak so quickly that your ideas are diminished, I will have a hard time voting for you, especially if your opponent is more articulate (even with weaker arguments).
I vote on whatever I found to be effective in the round. The more specific your arguments are to what happens in the debate, the greater your chances of earning my ballot. I’m looking for clash and reward debaters who work to ensure it is achieved.

I am philosophically opposed to disclosing my ballot at the end of the round. I will only offer oral critique if I saw something that I think I could share to help you with the remaining rounds in the tournament (adjusting your case, how you could have argued more effectively, etc.). Everything else I am thinking during the round I will note on the ballot.

واهاهاهاه‌هاهاهاهاه‌هاهاهاه‌هاهاهاه‌هاهاهاهاهاهاه‌هاهاهاه‌هاهاهاهاه‌هاهاهاهاه‌هاهاهاهاهاهاه

مهدی صدقدار-

Hi, and welcome to my paradigm! My name is Arman Dolatabadi (dole-at-ah-bud-dee), and I'm a current LD debater at Vestavia Hills High School. Add me on the email chain: aydolatabadi@gmail.com

TLDR: Be compassionate to your fellow debaters and I'll be a good judge for you.

General Thoughts/Methods:

• Tech>truth, unless you say something egregious (see speaker points section for more info). I will 100% vote for an argument saying that everyone on Earth in one year is going to be speaking Turkish as a lingua franca just as long as it's executed well.
• I really enjoy creative arguments, but not creative frameworks or values. If you make "the value debate" a thing, I will scream internally.
• I don't flow cross-ex, but if something important happens, I'll take note of it.
• I will not extend your arguments for you.
• Generally, I think the amount of time left in the 1NR and the 1AR are good gauges of how well-thought out your responses are. Please use all of the time available in these speeches.
• Spreading is fine, just send me the doc and check with your opponent that they're okay with it.
• Framework arguments along the lines of "X framework justifies X atrocity" are just not very convincing to me.
• If you have any issues with my decision, feel free to talk with me about post-round. The last thing I want to be during this competition is an unfair judge.

Preferences:

I do really enjoy listening to progressive arguments, but not everyone here knows how to respond to them. If you do decide to run one of the arguments I have listed below on an opponent who clearly doesn't know how it works, I'm not going to evaluate it at all.

Plans/Counterplans: These cases look very normal to me. Feel free to run any plan or counterplan you want, for the most part. Condo is valid. Don't drop the perm. Judge kick is a lie. Specify status. Also, I can't believe I have to say this, but a regular plan text is automatically topical to the resolution.

Kritiks: YES. 10/10. 29/10 if you make it a setcol K.

Theory: I like theory when it actually checks abuse. If not (see exception below), then it's probably going to get dropped on my flow pretty quickly. This especially applies to topicality shells.

Tricks: I'm not expecting anyone to run tricks, but if other judges have been unreceptive to them thus far, then GREAT NEWS! I will evaluate your tricks. Just make sure that they make debate a more lively activity, rather than a colder one.

Also, with whatever case you run, PLEASE don't make U.S. heg its central point. I'm begging you.

Speaker Points:

Speaker points usually end up being completely subjective from judge to judge, so I try to offer a little bit of consistency to the way I award them. I start speaker points at 28.5 and raise them from there depending on how well I think you delivered your argument.

The only ways your speaks will drop below this cap would be if you:

a. foster a mean-spirited environment while speaking, ESPECIALLY in cross-ex. [26 or lower]

b. say something completely egregious in-round. No racism, homophobia, sexism, or anything of the like. Basically, don't attack someone's innate characteristics. [L25]

c. run an argument in the same fashion as "death good," "discrimination good," or "genocide good" [L25]

Some other things that affect speaks:

• Confidence
• Good organization
• Signposting
• Providing an accurate off-time roadmap
• Creative arguments

Fun stuff you can do for extra speaks:

1. Show me you read my paradigm by telling me the minimum amount of times I pressed "enter" when writing it. [+0.5 speaks]
2. Send me a song recommendation. The only catch is that it can't be in English. [+1.0 speaks or higher if the song is good. If the song is not good, +0.1 speaks]

email: faindebate@gmail.com

‘24 State Update:

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

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

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

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

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

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

wells.finch1020@gmail.com

Experience- Debating LD, PF, and CX for five years with a little bit of congress and IEs sprinkled in (at Mountain Brook)

I don't judge often but I know what I'm doing

Ask me questions after the round bc you likely won't see me again

Progressive stuff-idc just know what you're doing

Tech>truth (you still need decent warrants)

DONT READ A PARAPHRASED CASE

give an off time road map, like neg aff, not I'm going to start on my opponents C1 and refute this and that and then go to their C2 and do that and this. That's too long, I'll give low speaks for that

Sign post-if I don't know where you are, I can't flow what your saying

I'll time you but I'm not going to cut you off. I stop flowing after about ten seconds, but you can talk for as long as you feel like, it'll just be a waste of our time.

be nice

Cross- If it isn't brought up later in round I won't evaluate it (be nice)

Read a case with cut cards

Speed is fine but I flow the speech so if I can’t understand you I’ll just stop flowing

Give me weighing

Clash is super important

Feel free to text me if you have questions after round or if you think that I should know something before the round.

(205)-517-3521

Ask me anything beforehand if you are confused or have any other questions

If you say anything sexist, homophobic, racist, transphobic, etc I'll drop you with a 0

Be chill. Don’t be extra. Do your best and have fun.

Ask specific questions prior to round.

Hi guys! My name is Hope, and I am a senior at Vestavia Hills High School. I am a third year varsity in debate. I have a lot of experience in Big Questions, Congress, Lincoln Douglas, and Public Forum, and I have competed in World Schools as well. Just a few preferences:

Win on the flow. tech > truth

Keep track of your own time.

I don't mind fast speaking or spreading, but make sure you emphasize major taglines, points, statistics, and author names. If I don't hear the tagline, the argument/card will not flow in the round. If you are going to spread, send your doc.

Make sure to signpost and give an off-time road-map.

I do not flow cross-ex, so if you want something to be incorporated into the ballot from cross, make sure to bring it up in another speech.

I like framework debate, theory debate, and substance debate.

I am not as familiar with Ks and tricks, but I do know what they are. Speak slowly and really explain during more progressive arguments so I know how to evaluate them.

Don't forget to weigh.

My email is hopeajohnson07@gmail.com for evidence and case chains.

Don't be rude and have fun! Good luck!

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.

For Debate Rounds: PLEASE do not use time in the debate to email evidence back and forth. Research is supposed to be completed before the round starts. I want to see students who have gained some mastery of the topic at hand. Also, I will not read evidence you send me. I am here to judge how well you argue your case by giving speeches in the times given, I am not here to complete assigned reading. If you want me to know what a card says, tell me in your speeches.

MY EXPERIENCE & SKILL LEVEL: I coached PF for one year back in 2008-2009. I never did debate in high school, and have no competence for keeping up with technical debate or a rigorous flow. I know that the words flow, cross-apply, turn, etc… exist and have something to do with debate, but if you use them in the round, you will probably lose me. While I would like to be able to flow fast speech, I simply lack that ability, so if you decide to go with a technical, policy-like style, just know that I will not be able to keep up. You might make the best argument that has ever been seen in the history of the world, but I will miss it.

MY PREFERENCES: I like conversational debate that comes down to the important core issues at the heart of the resolution. I want to see that you have not only researched and learned a million facts about the topic, but that you understand what you are talking about. For me, the evidence and ideas you use in a debate aren’t mere cards to stack against other debater’s card stacks like a game of political Pokémon; these are real issues with real impacts in the real world you really live in. I want to see a sincere, good-faith debate that takes the issues seriously. If you can throw in a nice rhetorical device here and there like alliteration or a clever turn of phrase, that would probably subconsciously help win me over, too. Most of all, I want to see everyone learn from the round, get better at dealing with difficult topics, hone their speaking skills, and feel good about doing their best.

Good luck in today's debate! I am a veteran Lincoln-Douglas debater from Saint James School in Montgomery, where I debated locally and nationally in high school. I was excited about debate then and still am now! After I graduated college and law school I worked for a long time as an attorney and now serve as a federal judge. Free speech and advocacy are a big part of what makes our country special, and I am thrilled that you have chosen to invest your time and talents in civil discourse.

I'm a pretty traditional judge. You can trust that I'm completely unbiased (I maintain my impartiality as part of my everyday work life), and you should not expect to win my ballot if you're not a persuasive advocate. You'll have to speak clearly and make sure that I understand your argument before you can have any expectation that I'll accept it. Spread at your own risk. If your opponent spreads, think big thoughts about how you can slow the round down and still win. In this kind of debate, the gutsy debater with a few good arguments (or even only one) is often more effective than the fastest speaker with loads of weaker things to say. Proper decorum is a must - I'm completely confident that you can be effective without being rude. Stand up straight, make eye contact, and be your best self. Good luck!

hey! hope it's going well! 

I'll save you some time so you can spend less time looking at my paradigm and more time prepping, so here's a really quick rundown: 

• I'm comfortable with basically any speed, just send a speech doc
• Tech > Truth ; but amazing speaking will be reflected in your speaker points
• I will be fine evaluating any argument, so run whatever you think is best. (LARP = Trad > T/Theory > Phil = Kritiks > trix)
• I will be very happy if you make the round easy for me to decide (collapsing, weighing, extending offense, etc.) 
• Don't worry about me as a judge I will definitely do my best and give advice to help you get better
• best of luck, you got this!
• don't stress about how you're doing - I get that everyone wants to win and I definitely felt like that too when I was at the novice tournament, but at the end of the day it's probably your first ever debate tournament so just treat this as a way to learn and HAVE FUN! (who knows maybe we'll debate each other in the future)

--------------------------

Eddy Pang | Vestavia 24' | eddypang2018@gmail.com 

Hey guys im Monsi Parekh!

Top Level - don't be sexist, racist, homophobic etc. - seriously not cool

-Please respect your opponent - whether it be pronouns, cross x, etc.

-Good with any speed just send the doc if you're going fast

If there's an email chain - add me mjparekh06@gmail.com

For Vestavia Novice

1) this is a novice tournament. DO NOT be exclusionary, novice is not the place for it. Please read inclusionary arguments, even if it means that you have to be super trad when you don't want to.

2) Don't be nervous. It's fine if you stutter, slip up, forget things, stop, or just don't know how to answer something. That's alright because you are all novices. Try to have fun though!! THIS IS A LEARNING EXPERIENCE

3) All criticism is constructive, and imo some of the stuff I've ever learned comes in that period of time. It's to make y'all better, NOT MAKE you feel bad.

4) I'll be more than happy to answer any questions as long as it doesn't skew the round

Weigh!!!!!! extend stuff!!!!!! collapse!!!

Hello! I'm a veteran educator of world languages. I've taught at several schools throughout the East Coast and South at all levels (secondary and collegiate). I ask that you enunciate clearly and slow down. Please no spreading! Time yourself. Weigh your impact(s). Good luck today!

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

Pronouns are she/her.

Email --- snekharaj.nkl@gmail.com

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

General

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

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

Framework

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

Disads

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

Other

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

Please be nice to everyone, and have fun!!

Jay Rye - Head Coach - Montgomery Academy

Experience- I have been involved with L/D debate since 1985 as a former L/D debater, judge, and coach. I have been involved with Policy debate since 1998. I have coached Public Forum debate since it began in 2002. While at many tournaments I serve in the role as tournament administrator running tournaments from coast to coast, every year I intentionally put myself into the judge pool to remain up to date on the topics as well as with the direction and evolving styles of debate. I have worked at summer camps since 2003 - I understand debate.

Philosophy

I would identify myself as what is commonly called a traditional L/D judge. Both sides have the burden to present and weigh the values and/or the central arguments as they emerge during the course of the round. I try to never allow my personal views on the topic to enter into my decision, and, because I won't intervene, the arguments that I evaluate are the ones brought into the round - I won't make assumptions as to what I "think" you mean. I am actually open to a lot of arguments - traditional and progressive - a good debater is a good debater and an average debater is just that - average.

While for the most part I am a "tabula rasa" judge, I do have a few things that I dislike and will bias me against you during the course of the round either as it relates to speaker points or an actual decision. Here they are:

1) I believe that proper decorum during the round is a must. Do not be rude or insulting to your opponent or to me and the other judges in the room. Not sure what you are trying to accomplish with that approach to debate.

2) Both sides must tell me why to vote "for" them as opposed to simply why I should vote "against" their opponent. In your final speech, tell me why I should vote for you - some call this "crystallization" while others call it "voting issues" and still others just say, "here is why I win" - whatever you call it, I call it letting your judge know why you did the better job in the round.

3) I am not a big fan of speed. You are more than welcome to go as fast as you want, but if it is not on my flow, then it was not stated, so speed at your own risk. Let me say that to the back of the room - SPEED AT YOUR OWN RISK! If you have a need for speed, at the very least slow down on the tag lines as well as when you first begin your speech so that my ears can adjust to your vocal quality and tone.

4) I am not a big fan of "debate speak: Don't just say, cross-apply, drop, non-unique, or other phrases without telling me why it is important. This activity is supposed to teach you how to make convincing arguments in the real world and the phrase "cross-apply my card to my opponents dropped argument which is non-unique" - this means nothing. In other words, avoid being busy saying nothing.

5) Realizing that many debaters have decided to rely on the Wiki, an email chain, and other platforms to exchange the written word, in a debate round you use your verbal and non-verbal skills to convince me as your judge why you win the round. I rarely call for evidence and I do not ask to be on any email chain.

Please add me to the email chain, shijh2004@hotmail.com

Hey all,

My name is James Shi and I'm a student at the University of Alabama at Birmingham studying neuroscience and getting a master's in public health.

I have experience competing in the college ethics bowl and bioethics bowl. I've judged a few tournaments in LD before.

I prefer traditional cases. Anything else is fine if it's not too difficult to follow.

Truth > Tech

Speak clearly and not too quickly for me to understand. If you're spreading, I would prefer to have your case.

Signpost clearly.

Don't gaslight me :')

I am currently in my sixth year debating at Mountain Brook High School

Top Level Stuff

-Add me to the email chain and email me with any questions after the round: jacksonrshort@gmail.com

-Debate is a game; win the game

-Debate needs to be a fun activity; if you make me laugh you'll get an extra speaker point

PF

-I am comfortable with speed, but don't spread, it's PF, if you want to spread do a different event

-I'm ok with pretty much all kinds of progressive argumentation, but if I don't understand it, I can't vote off of it, so make sure you explain it well

-I generally think theory is a good thing (especially paraphrasing), but it really bothers me when teams read it simply as a cop-out. Only read theory if your opponent is doing something that merits it. That said, if your opponent is reading theory just to try to win the round and not address an actual issue, then call it out; I am very open to voting on a friv theory arg. Also, if you're not comfortable with it, don't read it; there are plenty of other ways to win the round.

LD

-I'm comfortable with speed, but if you spread send a speech doc

-Please please please implicate the round through your value and criterion; if you don't, I don't know what to vote on

-Generally comfortable with progressive debate

-If you read tricks or super philosophical arguments, explain them well. If I don't understand it I won't vote on it.

hi im arav

three years of ld at vestavia

dont be mean or exclusionary

have fun and be nice

i try to eval any arg except horrendous ones / uneducational ones

explain warrants

collapse

please dont make any arguments about personal things

im a slightly below average flower please dont blitz through 1ars and 2ars

slow down in your 1ar's if its not on the doc. if you send analytics your speaks will be great!

--

i lean fw vs k, not big fan of rob/fw heavy 2nr

k lit thats cool w me - cap, setcol, disability, psycho, weheliye -- anything else overexplain please

policy is good

please do the lbl on cp or da 2nr, not a big fan of giant overviews that implicitly answer everything

phil is good but explain skep/permiss triggers properly please

t/theory is good

tricks are ok - some tricks such as paradoxes are ok but any silly ones such as eval after x speech are probably bad for debate

--

everything in pf is chill do whatever

Hey, I am a graduated debater of LD.

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

Give roadmaps before each speech.

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

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

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

Signposting is very important.

Voters help me weigh the round.