Jordan Berry - Loveless Academic Magnet Program High School

Hello!

I have been a coach and judge since 2015. Most debaters over the years categorize me as a traditional L/D judge. My chief weighing mechanism is usually framework (my undergraduate degree is in philosophy), but I can be persuaded to the contrary. I have no value hierarchy. I strive to keep personal views and ballot intervention away from my RFD. I will evaluate only those arguments brought up by the debaters.

Speed is an issue for me. This is primarily an education and communication activity. I highly doubt either Lincoln or Douglas themselves were spreading, and I've never seen spreading in any real-life situation aside from episodes of "Storage Wars." I do flow the round (though not cross), but "winning the flow" isn't the same as winning the round in some cases; this event is supposed to be persuasive and accessible, not a checklist of responses and replies. Thus, I always roll my eyes when one of my debaters complains about "lay" judges: in crafting a case/round, they should receive as much consideration as that ex-policy debater.

Other issues for me: do be respectful. Do engage meaningfully with the resolution. Do be honest. Do have fun.

Break a leg!

jordan.berry@mps.k12.al.us

P.S. All this extinction stuff is just debaters trolling, right?

Hi!

I am a Senior manager in Information Technology and have a good understanding various topics in Science, Technology, Politics. I haven't been a judge in the past but I am excited to judge for the first time.

I have been a coach, mentor and people manager for many years and I tend to view things neutral so that my feedback and judgement is unbiased.

I prefer people to articulate their view points in a structured way, establish context and slowly build the story on the foundation. Blabbering at "Jet speed" is something that I don't receive well. Be respectful and engage in a healthy competition.

Hey everyone!

I will keep my paradigm rather simplistic. I appreciate creative, clear arguments. Avoid spreading and respect your opponents.

Hello! I'm Casey, and you may have seen me in the 2020 NSDA final round of Duo! I am an alum of Hattiesburg High School (In Mississippi) and am currently a member of the Alabama Forensic Council at the University of Alabama. I've been competing since the 7th grade (so now that's 10 years of speech oh lord) and while I stuck to interp in high school, I've branched out to platform events in college so I've either competed in or seen every event out there. I don't have any super specific judging preferences, I only ask that you give it your all. If you ever have any questions about my ballot/comments or the AFC/Alabama, feel free to email me at caseybuisson@gmail.com and I'd be happy to talk to you! If I've learned anything in my time as a competitor it's to have FUN while you're performing and your judges will notice. Good luck!!

SOOOOOOO TRAD.

PF:

-Do not spread. On a scale of 1-10 for speed I prefer somewhere around 6-7. I would prefer you to slow down or pause a tad for taglines for my flow. Also if you list 4-5 short points or stats in quick succession, I probably will miss one or two in the middle if you dont slow down.

-Arguments you go for should appear in all speeches. If your offense was not brought up in summary, I will ignore it in FF.

-I do not think cross is binding. It needs to come up in the speech. I do not flow cross, and as a flow judge that makes decisions based on my flow, it won't have much bearing on the round.

-At the least I think 2nd rebuttal needs to address all offense in round. Bonus points for collapsing case and completely frontlining the argument you do go for.

-Please time yourselves. My phone is constantly on low battery, so I'd rather not use it. If you want to keep up with your opponents' prep too to keep them honest then go ahead.

-In terms of some of the more progressive things- I haven't actually heard theory in a PF round but I hear it's a thing now. If your opponent is being abusive about something then sure, let me know, either in a formal shell or informal. Don't run theory just to run it though. Obviously, counterplans and plans are not allowed in PF so just don't.

-pet peeves:

1) Bad or misleading evidence. Unfortunately this is what I am seeing PF become. Paraphrasing has gotten out of control. Your "paraphrased" card better be accurate. If one piece of evidence gets called out for being miscut or misleading, then it will make me call in to question all of your evidence. If you are a debater that runs sketchy and loose evidence, I would pref me very high or strike me.

2) Evidence clash that goes nowhere. If pro has a card that says turtles can breathe through their butt and con has a card saying they cannot and that's all that happens, then I don't know who is right. In the instance of direct evidence clash (or even analytical argumentation clash) tell me why to prioritize your evidence over theirs or your line of thinking over theirs. Otherwise, I will consider the whole thing a wash and find something else to vote on.

3) Not condensing the round when it should be condensed. Most of the time it is not wise to go for every single argument on the flow. Sometimes you need to pick your battles and kick out of others, or risk undercovering everything.

LD:
So first, I primarily judge PF. This means my exposure to certain argument types is limited. I LOVE actually debating the resolution. Huge fan. I'm cool with DAs and CPs. Theory only if your opponent is being overly abusive (so no friv). If you are a K or tricks debater good luck. I know about the progressive things but since I primarily judge PF, my ability to evaluate it is very limited from experience. If you want to go for a K or something, I won't instantly drop you and I will try my best to flow and evaluate it in the round. But you will probably need to tweak it a little, slow down, and explain more how it is winning and why I should vote for it. I come from a traditional circuit, so the more progressive the round gets, the less capable I am of making a qualified decision.

I do not want you to flash your case to me. I want to flow it. If you read to point that it is unflowable then it is your loss. If I don't flow it, I cannot evaluate it and thus, cannot vote on it. Spreading in my opinion is noneducational and antithetical to skills you should be learning from this activity. Sorry, in the real world and your future career, spreading is not an acceptable practice to convince someone and get your point across.

Both:
Please signpost/roadmap- I hate when it is unclear where you are and I get bounced around the flow. Have fun and don't be overly aggressive.

Hello,

I have judged Speech and Debate for 1 year now. This is my first year as a Coach and I look forward to watching you compete!

While judging Lincoln-Douglas I keep personal views and opinions separate from judging, so I will judge purely off your framework. While I understand the personal benefits to spreading, I do not find speaking extremely fast to be in the spirit of true debate. As long as you speak clearly and it is comprehendible, I am fine with your choice of speed throughout the round. I will flow the round to ensure I understand each contention and how it relates to your value/value criterion. Please remain respectful and have a great time debating!

All the best!

Public Forum:

I debated PF 4 years in high school. I have judged for PF for the past 3-4 years.

Round procedure:

Try not to spread. Your points are important and it is crucial that I catch what you are saying.

Address dropped arguments throughout the round.

Make sure you use authentic evidence because I will call for cards.

Stand for speeches, but what you do for cross is up to you.

Make sure you signpost.

Speaker points:

In addition to being able to carry out arguments, I will weigh in confidence, projection, ability to remain assertive and not become aggressive or hostile.

Respect is super important in a round. DO NOT cut off your opponent. While I do not flow cross, it can play a role in the speaker points.

Hey y'all! My name is Eigen (eye-⟨g⟩en), and I debated PF for three years and Big Questions for one year at Vestavia Hills High School. If you have an email chain, feel free to add my email (eigen.nathan.h.escario@vanderbilt.edu). I will not ask for evidence unless it becomes a main point of contention in the debate.

—

The most important thing is that you don't spread. I won't flow anything that I don't catch or understand, so focus more on the quality of what you're saying rather than the quantity and prioritize what responses are most unique to the debate at hand rather than trying to win by confusing everyone in the room.

—

Some things I want to see:

1. Weigh. You have to write my ballot for me, so tell me why your arguments are more valid than your opponents'.
2. Signpost. Be clear about what you're responding/referring to, how many unique responses you have, and why it's relevant to the points you are addressing.
3. Extend in summary. If you're collapsing on something, I want to see it straight through the flow.
4. No theory.If it’s PF, not LD.

—

I won't flow anything from cross unless you bring it up in your speeches; I will only use this time to evaluate speaker points.

I'm a current freshman student at Auburn University. I've competed and have experience in both Speech and Debate (PF) tournaments. If I am your judge, please take note of the following:

(Debate only) Email for chains: felicityg2017@gmail.com (I suggest doing this for online tournaments so everyone can clearly view cases)

• I will not flow your cross, but please be respectful to other teams. I will take off speaker points if you appear to be completely dominant and refuse to let the other team speak. If you wish to bring something up in cross in future speeches, make sure you do so clearly.
• I won't be able to remember card author names, so saying "Smith '19" is not going to earn you credit. Please elaborate on this card if you want me to flow it.
• I will time you, but I strongly encourage you to also time yourselves. (You may ask me to time you at any point!)
• Remain respectful throughout the entire debate. Any mentions of racism/homophobia/sexism will be an automatic drop.
• Tech over truth so always provide me with evidence.
• I love bizarre arguments ONLY IF you're able to argue them well and in a way that makes sense. Uniqueness is key.
• We will flip a coin (siri) to decide sides.
• Weigh clearly! Tell me your road map before starting your speech.

If you are concerned with gaining speaker points:

• I have a speech background so clarify + speed is a great combo (but not spreading please)
• Utilizing your voice (not speaking too softly) and presenting confidence matters
• League of Legends/Valorant reference

I have a theatre background but have been coaching and judging on and off for over 20+ years. I want to hear what you are saying and feel what you are trying to convey. I expect professionalism and courtesy in the round and out of the round. I don't appreciate spreading, I want to see a debate not a race. I love innovation in ideas and I appreciate pushing the boundaries. BUT, I admire old school standards. I probably won't smile but that doesn't mean that I don't like what you are doing. (I am concentrating trying to find constructive criticisms.) I can multitask, so don't think because I am writing that I am not watching. I don't prefer to disclose.

My name is Braden (she/her/hers) and I am a rising junior at UA. I am a member of the Alabama Forensics Council and did speech and debate throughout high school. I currently compete in PERS, EXT, ADS, and CA. I have experience with every style of debate, but spent the majority of my time doing PF. Please don't go on your phone or social media during round. I am a little hard of hearing so please speak up! If I start pointing up during your speech that means increase your volume. Please share your pronouns at the beginning of the round/debate. Please issue a content warning if you will be speaking on sexual assault, violence, drug use, or any other potentially triggering content.

Congress: I have done congress about 4 times. I value engaging with other speeches the most. If you are PO, please keep time, follow all the rules, and be respectful in order to rank well. I do not tolerate rudeness and will dock you points if you are hostile in your speeches.

LD: Please, do not spread. I will not be able to flow your speech. Keep your own time. If you are going to use K's/theory arguments do not co-opt marginalized identities you are not connected with for the purpose of winning the round. I will not vote you up, and I will note it on my ballot. If you choose to go the more critical route, I will be critical of your argument. I do not tolerate rudeness and will dock you points if you are hostile in your speeches. For me, I judge based on impact statements, carrying your argument throughout the round, and overall speaking. If you are going to spread, or talk faster than you do in normal conversation, please share your case with me. My email is bradenleehopkins@gmail.com. Once again, I am not a judge who is going to love spreading, but I understand it is not explicitly against the rules.

If you are interested in doing speech and debate in college please talk to me after round! Joining AFC has been one of my best decisions coming into college and I would love for any of you talented people to join!

Also, please don’t apologize when you are presenting. Flubs, memory stumbles, “mistakes”, etc. happen and you have nothing to be sorry about! Everyone is proud of you and wants to hear all the amazing messages you have spent time crafting.

I am a lay judge and have been judging speech and debate for about 6 years. I believe that debate should include a clear presentation of your arguments and evidence. I also believe your speeches should be well organized. In the end, I will value argument over style, but the way you present your arguments is important to my understanding of those arguments. If you call for evidence, please have a legitimate reason for it. I don't like spending a lot of prep time on it. I expect you to time yourselves, but I will be timing too. I like clear, organized flows with clear voters at the end. I weigh heavily on impacts so compare your impacts and convince me that yours are stronger. Please be civil and respectful to your partner and competitors.

My background is in theatre and speech. I love judging speech events and will typically vote for the presenter who has the strongest emotional connection to their piece and the audience. There must be an effective balance of design, style, and presentation. The pieces that showcase who you are as a performer as well as communicating something new and fresh are welcome.

First time lay judge. I prefer clear, well-structured speeches. Don't assume I am well-versed in your topic. Arguments should be accessible.

No speed -- if I can't understand you, then it doesn't count as an argument.

Please be respectful of your competitors at all times.

Please time and keep track of your own speeches and prep.

UPDATE FOR ALABAMA STATE: I dont really have time to check my disclosure explanation that well. If youre confused, think it doesnt make sense, or are have any concerns, you can email me at jbmccleskey@crimson.ua.edu and I'll get back to you ASAP!

Debate Background

Debated Independently for Decatur Heritage, AL (2019)

• Args I used in high school: https://opencaselist.com/hsld18/DecaturHeritage/JuMc
• If the link does work, the 2018-2019 archive has my senior year args.

B.A. Political Science, UA (2021)

• Alabama Forensic Council and Alabama Debate Society Competitor
• Undergrad Thesis was on the role of Kritiks in the Debate Space

M.A. Public Administration, UA (2023)

• Occasionally coached and judged for Alabama Debate Society

Judging Habits

- Do whatever you want. I dont care if you stand, sit, lay across the desk or whatever in round. I should also be good with most speeds, but if I need you down I'll just keep saying slow until you're at a level I can flow.

- I've engaged well enough with most arguments to become familiar with them, but that doesn't mean you should avoid basic argument structures. I'm most versed on Ks, but that also means I have a decent threshold for them. I'll judge the round based on how you tell me I should :)

- If you're planning to spread, it would be significantly easier for me to flow if you could throw me on the email chain (jbmccleskey@crimson.ua.edu). I keep a decent 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).

- I believe debate is a training field and an educational activity first-- it has a competitive nature as a game, but should remain ethical and truthful as an educational activity. Essentially, go for whatever route you're comfortable with, but be prepared to defend its utility. This activity can be really elitist and this a route to address it. Even paradigms that try to make this activity more accessible end up adding on jargon that benefits larger programs.

Looking to do Speech/Debate in college?

Let me know. UA has a team that competes in both speech and debate, and a separate organization focusing on providing debate resources and coaching to developing debate programs. Both of these have funding potential and are super accessible no matter your experience level. I can also connect you to some other programs (and just generally like talking about the different spheres of this activity on the collegiate level).

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!!

Willing to give progressive a chance.

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

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.

I competed in PF and IPDA at the national level in high school and college.

PF - I am a flow judge. I am good with speed but do not spread. I don't flow CX, but I do listen to it.

The most important thing to keep in mind is the framework and impacts. Tell me why you have won the round and give me as little choice in the matter as possible. Do all the work for me and I am more likely to vote your way.

LD - I am experienced enough to understand Ts and Ks, but not to understand spreading. If you insist on spreading you MUST share your case with me before round (andrewschmidt5667@gmail.com) but no promises even if you do.

BQ - this is supposed to be an accessible form of debate, so be accessible. I'm really not interested in hearing Ks run in Big questions.

My name is Isaac Sherman (he/him) and I formerly competed for the Prattville High School Speech and Debate team. I am now a member of the Alabama Forensics Council at the University of Alabama. I have won multiple state championships in Alabama (PF and Congressional). In college, I am a NNFA National champion in IPDA debate.

Concerning the round, I focus primarily on analysis and clash. I prefer clear line-by-line breakdowns of cases, but other methods, with good execution, can win my ballot. I do not have a value hierarchy, as it is the debaters obligation to convince me why I should buy their proposition.

While I expect, and encourage, clash, the easiest way to lose my ballot is by being disrespectful when it is unwarranted. It goes without saying that I should not witness attacks on character, religion, class, speaking style (as in accents), etc. etc. Likewise, do not make an accusation that the opponent has done such things without reasonable grounds. I want a healthy debate designed to cultivate a greater sense of understanding beyond typical secondary curriculum, and the only way to accomplish that is through mutual respect.

I have done debate, and read and think at a speed much like yours most likely. You can spread, but if I don't understand you, or if your opponent is clearly disadvantaged by a lack of understanding of your case specifically because of what appears to be speaking speed, that will impact my decision.

I do not flow cross, so be sure to extend those arguments in your speeches.

Other than that, the debate is fair game. I don't care what you run as long as you prove to me why I should prefer you on a ballot!

On a side note, thank you all for competing. The amount of time and effort that goes into producing the levels of research that you do goes far beyond the expectations place on high schoolers. It is also increasingly complex because of the covid-induced style we have to compete within.

Good luck, and happy debating!

I am knowledgeable about LD and PF debate styles. I debated in high school for four years and was a member of the Alabama Forensic Council now.

I know how to judge progressive debate, but I prefer not to. I think some progressive debate has leaned towards elitism and I believe all debate should be accessible to all peoples. For that reason, it is ok if you spread- but I prefer you not to. If you are bad at spreading, I will tell you you're bad at spreading. Always be sure to flash me and your opponent your cases if you choose to spread.

I judge off flow. Simple as that.

debated PF in high school local and nationally

if LD treat me like a lay judge