Parent judge with experience judging humorous interpretation, impromptu, original oratory, public forum and Lincoln Douglas. I am ok with fast speakers, as long as you are clear and articulate in your argument.

I value confidence, respect for your opponent, and a clear speaking voice.

I volunteer to judge these events because I respect and value the time and dedication each student puts into their arguments.

Good Luck and have fun!

Cypress Bay 2020

FIU- current

I've been with Champion Briefs since the 2020-2021 season

I'd like to be on the chain :) garrett.bishop2577@gmail.com

Policy note - I'm good for any kind of debate you want to do, but don't judge the event super often, so I'm not going to get most topic jargon.

1 - K/Performance, esp high theory (but I also think T is true)

1-2 - Policy v Policy

2 - Dense idptx positions

3 - Phil you can explain well

4 - Theory heavy positions, besides T

5 - Dense phil you can't explain very well

Public forum stuff is near the bottom

#deBAYbies

Super duper short pre-round version: If you read Ks, I should be a high pref. If you read tricks and/or phil, I should be a low pref. I'm more familiar with the pomo side of Ks. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible. I say probably a lot. I generally don't flow author names, and I wasn't the best at flowing while I was competing. So... slow down on extensions a lil bit?

You can debate, really, however you want to debate. However, help me help you, and don't paraphrase your evidence. Reading essay style cases can also be hard to follow, so do with that information whatever you will.

Non T positions are cool, extra T and fxT are chill absent theory. I promise you can read whatever you want.

If that didn't help, you have questions, and you don't want to read my rambling, just shoot me an email. If it's before a tournament, I can't promise as to how quickly I'll answer, but at tournaments I have my email open 24/7.

Small 2023 update: I'm pretty okay with listening to phil/tricks positions, I think. However, you must be aware that this is not a branch of theory I think about often, or a form of debate that I coach or did while I was in high school. Phil v K debate is probably an uphill battle to win. You also must slow down when reading the big/abstract positions, and you should explain implications to me. If you read phil/tricks, I want you to explain it to me like I'm your younger sibling -I will not understand the phil buzzwords and jargon. ALSO, unrelated: 1AC theory makes me feel icky. You get infinite prep, you shouldn't have to read theory in your 1AC. Just debate. I believe in you.

The above is still true, especially the 1AC theory stuff, but after several months of doing prefs for my Cypress kids... there are a lot of people on the circuit now that are outright hostile towards phil stuff, or even tricks debate and this is kind of disappointing to me. Read the arguments that you want to read in front of me, but you should know that there are certain levels of explanation that you need to hit for me to vote on something - the brightline for voting on a dropped 1AC spike is going to be a lot higher for me than a fully fleshed out 1NC DA + case answers.

Longer version

• Some of the judges/coaches who particularly influenced me and my debate style during my career include: Daniel Shatzkin, Alex Landrum, Aleksandar Shipetich, Allison Harper, Sawyer Emerson, Mitchell Buehler, Claire Rung, Rob Fernandez

• Defaults: Role of Debate > Judge > Ballot; comparative worlds first; competing interps; drop the debater; presume negative; reps/pre-fiat > literally everything else

• Background + my thoughts on the (negative) K: My career started at the Samford Debate Institute in the policy lab where I learned how to disad/counterplan/case debate. At my first tournament of the year, I turned around and read a death good aff and haven't turned back from the K since. In my senior year alone, I read: Anthro, Baudrillard (a few variations of this one), Dark Deleuze, Abolition, and Security. I don't think kritiks are really ever cheating unless they create a perfcon. I'm far more familiar with the post-modernism/high theory side of K debate over the identitarian side, though I have read a considerable amount of literature on both sides. Other Ks that I haven't read in round, but know the literature well enough include: Psychoanalysis, Afropessimism, Wake Work, settler colonialism, and queer pessimism, among others. You'll get +0.1 speaks if you use correct human/nonhuman animal rhetoric. Please don't read a K you don't understand just because I like Ks :)

• The (affirmative) K: I read these from pretty much day 1. There was only one instance in which I didn't (looking at you, UK), and that was a bit of a mess. Similar to the negative section, try not to read confusing (but fun) K affs just because I like them. It's more painful to listen to someone butcher a Deleuze aff than a hard right policy aff. I primarily read Fiction theory my senior year, and I love it more than anything, so you get brownie points if you also read these :)
• - - FW v K affs: It is often a true argument, and I will definitely vote on it. I think that TVAs are overhyped and to win on one, it should definitely solve at least 80% of the aff. That said, I think that affirmative debaters often just don't know how to beat back framework with their aff. You should leverage case v fw. You read six minutes of dense theory. You should use it.
• - - K v K affs: I think these are really cool. I don't really know if I know some of the identity lit well enough to judge something like afropess v afropess, but if you can explain the nuances well enough, then by all means go for it. The Baudrillard v Baudrillard debate was one of my favorites to be a part of in high school.
• - - Counterplans v K affs: I think these are often underutilized by debaters, myself included. The glitter bomb cp is legitimate. No questions asked.
• - - Plan affs - I like these. I think they're cool and very fun. Not really my style but that doesn't mean I hate them or won't vote on them. I think if you're gonna go for the policy option, you should just read a hard right plan with like a space-col advantage. I feel like the competitive advantage that soft-left policy affs traditionally got access to in HS Policy debate is kind of moot in LD because of the prevalence of both K debate as well as phil debate.

• - - Case debate: This is where the good stuff is. Also a great place to flex and/or show some personality and not be a robot. In my own words, "This inherency is awful 5head, cut a better card."
• - - CP/DA v Case: please don't say ceepee or deeaye, stop trying to be edgy and cool. Same thing goes for "arg" instead of argument. Just say the word pls. But yes these are cool. I like these. I didn't read these but I liked these a lot.
• - - Impact turns v Case: As long as it's not oppression/bigotry good, go for it. ffs i read death good lol
• - - T/th v Case: If there's an abuse, there's an abuse. If not wearing shoes is abusive to you, then we have different concepts of abuse. Do with that what you will. If you have to ask, "Is x shell frivolous?" The answer is probably yes. I probably don't think that T is really ever an RVI. The only feasible justification for an RVI on T that I can possible imagine is if you cross applied abuse from other shells. But eh who knows?
• - - K v Case: Yes please :) This was my favorite debate to have. I feel like there are the most potential layers to interact on. There's the case page itself, framing, the K, and anything else you might throw in there. "K bad judge help" isn't a legit argument. If the 1NC is one off, you shouldn't concede the entirety of the 1AC. I made this mistake a few times; it's not the move. Clash of civs is goated and I will not argue with you on this.

- Misc:

1. If I laugh I promise it's not at you

2. I enjoy it when two debaters clearly get along

3. Please don't be mean to younger debaters

4. R e s p e c t e a c h o t h e r

5. Do your own thing and do it well

6. Don't be afraid to ask questions

7. I have much less patience for frivolous arguments the farther we get into the tournament.

8. If you have any questions about the things that I read in particular, feel free to email me.

- Those Chart things because I think they're cool and fun

Policy-----------------------------------X----------K

Tech --X---------------------------------------------Truth

Condo ---------X------------------------------------Not Condo

Clarity -------------X-------------------------------Speed

Bowdreearrd X-------------------------------------------- Balldrilard

Ampharos X---------------------------------------------Literally any other Pokemon

A2/AT ------------------------------------------X-- A healthy, inconsistent mix in every file

A2 --------X------------------------------------ AT

Analytics in the doc -X------------------------------------------- A blank text file

Extending warrants ----------X---------------------------------- Extending authors

Jokes in the speech -----X--------------------------------------- Hello it's me, debate robot #6

I am a big meanie -------------------------------------------X- I am not a big meanie

Getting the shakes before a drop X-------------------------------------------- I don't understand this reference, grow up

Starship Troopers ----------X---------------------------------- Dune

The alt is rejection ------------------------------------------X-- Part of the alt might necessitate rejecting the aff

Defense ------------------------------------------X-- Offense

Please don't dodge questions in cross

Public Forum

I have a lot of feelings about this event. A lot of them boil down to, "If you want me to judge this round like a tech judge, you should probably follow the norms of technical debate." This means that I'll pull the trigger very easily on theoretical arguments that justify things that are "normal" in other forms of debate. Id est, disclosure and paraphrasing bad. It's possible to win disclosure bad or paraphrasing good in front of me, but it will for sure be an uphill battle.

I'm okay with speed.

I'm good with technical arguments.

Please don't read Ks or other "tech" arguments just because I like them. It's more painful to listen to them read poorly. That said, if you know the arguments, then feel free to read them.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them, I promise I'm not as mean as this paradigm likely makes me out to be.

This is perpetually going to get longer and longer as I see things that I need to address. I'll shorten it eventually, I promise.

• I'm a volunteer and I'm new to judging. Please speak slowly and clear. Thank you!

Hey guys! I'm Corbin, graduated in 2023, and did LD for all four years of high school and a little bit of HI in the last bit of my senior year.

First, please send your cases to me at corbindean0809@gmail.com so I can better flow your cases.

I try my absolute best to judge mostly off of flow, but I am only human and am subject to biases, so try to make your case as understandable as possible. No need to stress yourself out too much in cross ex since I don't really weigh it too much when deciding the round :)

I'm fine with most tech args (K's, theories, counterplans, etc) as long as they are coherent and make sense to me, but absolutely no spreading. If you spread in one of my rounds, I most likely (9.9/10) will vote against you in that round; I believe it to be an abusive practice.

I am also generally averse to extinction impacts or any far-fetched impacts as I believe it to be a ridiculously unlikely situation; I would prefer if you refer to casualties in the billions as that seems more likely than a full-extinction level event.

I usually do disclose like 10-15 minutes after rounds are over via email with RFD and feedback (RFD will be sent to both of you together, and feedback will be sent individually).

Other than that though, I look forward to hearing your arguments and it is my honor to be able to judge you guys.

For Debate:

I am a lay judge. When speaking, I prefer that you speak slowly, clearly, and try to avoid using a lot of debate terms that a first time judge might not understand. I expect for you not to spread. I do not understand what you are saying I will not be able to vote on it. Make sure to explain everything. Do NOT assume I understand everything. Make it clear what you are doing and what you want me to do. Please make sure to give an off-time roadmap before your speeches. During cross I will be listening, but if you want me to vote off something said during cross, mention it in your next speech. Thank you, and I wish you luck.

PF
Public forum debate is for the PUBLIC. So I expect debate that is accessible and inclusive to all audiences. 

The speaking rate can be moderate to moderately fast; however, I don’t think you serve yourself well or the community going any quicker than that. 

All arguments must be made by summary, or I will not be able to evaluate them in the final focus.

I prefer debate to be polite. Be nice to all competitors. Using offensive language of any kind, including but not limited to racist/sexist/ableist, will result in low speaker points and an automatic loss.

I judge arguments based on the order they are presented. I will go from top to bottom of the flow at the end of the round to make my decision. Please address the speeches that came before in the round, and make sure you are responding to the other team. 

Evidence is significant to me. I want you to include the author/organization and date. Feel free to email me and competitors to start a chain. 

Ultimately, have fun. Keep it entertaining. And keep it debate!

LD/PF:

I am a lay judge, I do not want any Theory Shells, K's, or Trix arguments.

I will usually choose truth over tech, but it depends on the topic and case specifically.

No Spreading! I will take away points if I cannot understand what you are saying. LD/PF were created to combat the issues in Policy, I would like it to stay that way. I do not care if students stand, sit, use a computer stand, or do not, as long as their voices and arguments are clear.

I would like clear evidence, if an opponent asks for your card, show them to prove your point. If there is confusion on whether or not a card is valid, ask me and I will decide on the ballot, or in person, if needed.

I will do my best to flow the argument, but I am not the best at it, so be patient with me. Do Not Send Me Your Case,I do not want to read a case, I would like to be able to hear and flow it. The only exception is if there is confusion on a student's card, contention, or observation, then you can send your case so I can decide.

Obviously, no bullying, no Ad Hominem attacks, and no discrimination on religion, race, etc. There should also be no unfounded accusations of discrimination, as this is just as bad as discrimination.

LD/PF:

I am a lay judge, I do not want any Theory Shells, K's, or Trix arguments.

I will usually choose truth over tech, but it depends on the topic and case specifically.

No Spreading! I will take away points if I cannot understand what you are saying. LD/PF were created to combat the issues in Policy, I would like it to stay that way. I do not care if students stand, sit, use a computer stand, or do not, as long as their voices and arguments are clear.

I would like clear evidence, if an opponent asks for your card, show them to prove your point. If there is confusion on whether or not a card is valid, ask me and I will decide on the ballot, or in person, if needed.

I will do my best to flow the argument, but I am not the best at it, so be patient with me. Do Not Send Me Your Case,I do not want to read a case, I would like to be able to hear and flow it. The only exception is if there is confusion on a student's card, contention, or observation, then you can send your case so I can decide.

Obviously, no bullying, no Ad Hominem attacks, and no discrimination on religion, race, etc. There should also be no unfounded accusations of discrimination, as this is just as bad as discrimination.

I am a laid judge, I only want clear spreading. I want it to be a professional round and everyone to be respectful. I would prefer traditional cases but if you're running complex case, let me know.

I'm a parent

This is my 3rd year judging LD, and I have a little experience judging PF. If I get you in a PF round please explain any jargon, I won't have any topic knowledge

Email: rich785d@gmail.com

Add me to the chain

Quick Prefs

1 - trad, low theory

2 - T, LARP

3 - Phil

4 - Ks

s - high theory, Pomo Ks, trix, identity Ks, friv theory

Defaults

• Presumption negates, Permissibility affirms
• Fairness > education
• No RVIs, Competing interps, drop the argument
• Comparative Worlds
• Condo bad

Thoughts

• Tech > truth, but I probably won't vote on anything absurd and my threshold for response is lower the worse an argument is
• Need claim, warrant, impact for everything you read
• Voters at the end of last two speeches
• Condo's probably bad so honestly just read a condo bad shell and I'm probably likely to vote on it
• I'm probably pretty likely to vote on T as long as its articulated well
• Don't read friv theory pls, if you have to ask yourself whether a shell is friv just don't read it
• If you plan on reading dense phil positions please please please explain everything in it extremely well
• I listen to cross but I won't flow, if anything it'll affect your speaks a little but don't worry too much about it
• Signpost everything, it's just good
• I'm fine with spreading it won't affect speaks or anything, but also send the doc and don't expect me to listen

Ks

• I won't understand anything Pomo or complex like Baudrillard or Psycho
• If you wanna read Ks just make it really simple for me and maybe overexplain, I'd probably be fine with setcol, cap, or security but anything else is kinda pushing it tbh

Theory

• I'm fine with most low theory and shells like Espec, Disclo, rlly anything as long as the interp is good
• I won't understand high theory, please don't try to explain it
• No friv

LARP

• Util trutil
• Extinction o/w
• CPs are usually pretty fun if they're well articulated
• Generic DAs are usually good, but unique is cool too

Phil

• Honestly, just overexplain your position and it'll be fine
• If you can't explain it don't read it because I won't get it either

Speaks

25 - 26: You said something offensive

26.1 - 27: Significantly below average, maybe you didn't cwi anything

27.1 - 28: Probably below average, there's definitely some stuff you need to change

28.1 - 29: Average - good, you could break

29.1 - 29.9: Should definitely break, probably one of the best I've seen

30: I've only given one 30 but honestly I'm probably more likely to give one now that I'm more experienced. Probably best I've ever seen debate and your strategic decisions and such were pretty much perfect

Hello, I'm Lucas, a former debater with experience in world schools and congress formats. As a judge, my focus is on several key aspects:

1. Case Interaction: I highly value debates where teams actively engage with each other's arguments. This means directly responding to your opponent's points and demonstrating how your case stands in relation to theirs. Merely presenting your case without this interaction will not suffice.

2. Organization and Clarity: A well-structured argument is crucial. I appreciate arguments that are logically organized and clearly presented. This helps me follow your line of reasoning and understand the crux of your arguments.

3. Quality over Quantity: Please prioritize the quality of your arguments over the quantity. I favor depth over breadth. Overloading with too many points can be counterproductive, as it can lead to superficial treatment of important issues.

4. Speaking Style: While I do value clear and confident delivery, the substance of your argument is far more important to me. Don't worry too much about rhetorical flourishes or a highly polished style; focus instead on the strength and clarity of your argumentation.

5. Spreading: I prefer that debaters do not rely heavily on spreading during the round. While I understand its role in debate, I cannot guarantee that I won't miss information if the debate is overly reliant on this technique. Ensure your arguments are clear and well-explained without the need for rapid speech.

6. Evidence and Examples: While empirical evidence and examples can strengthen an argument, I also value logical reasoning and theoretical frameworks. Make sure your evidence supports your claims effectively, and explain its relevance to your overall argument.

7. Respect and Decorum: Maintain a respectful attitude towards your opponents and the debate process. Civility is key in any debate, and I expect all participants to adhere to this principle.

I am a LAY JUDGE. again- LAY JUDGE. Alter your speeches/rhetoric accordingly. Do not spread, you will be dropped. Racist/disrespectful rhetoric = you getting dropped. Please use credible sources. I will take extensive notes on the round. Offer clear weighing.

It is my pleasure and honor to be a judge at high school debates. I enjoy watching and listening to the various student participants - many of whom will be the future leaders of our society and country. As I judge the participants, I will be looking for confidence and passion in their speeches, questions, and answers. I will also be looking for steady eye contact to their opponents, members of the audience, and the judges. Reputable facts and figures are, of course, important and will be noted by me. But if a participant cannot effectively present and defend their positions, my attention and vote will usually go to the participant who convinces me that their position is superior to their opponent. May the best debater win!