I am a former English teacher and a debate judge. I prefer that you speak clearly and enunciate precisely, not too rapidly, and not be pretentious or condescending.

I look forward to judging and hearing your speech/debate. Good Luck!

Hi! I’m a senior and I'm in my third year of LD at Midtown High School.

General

I prefer speech drop but put me on the email chain fionabray06@gmail.com

I've competed both on the GA circuit and national circuit, and broken at tournaments for both. I'm fine with progressive or trad, just do what you want in the round. Generally, I would say don't change your style for your opponent but also don't beat up on traditional debaters with jargon. Some exposure to the circuit is good but 7 off for an easy ballot is not. I think a good traditional debater should be able to effectively counter progressive argumentation without compromising their style. I did a lot of K debate my second year but I'm almost entirely a policy debater now.

Tech over truth, CX is binding, I presume neg but I’ll listen to arguments from either side

Give a roadmap before your speech. Signpost if you deviate from that but you should signpost anyway

I'm probably a 9/10 for speed, just be clear on analytics. I'll say clear three times then just ignore you.

I don't usually flow until the 1NC on case so I can read evidence

No you cannot insert rehighlighting???? I'm not flowing it unless you say it

Use trigger warnings if you're discussing sensitive stuff (on this, I'll evaluate arguments like neg util/death good and I've run them before but make sure to do it appropriately)

Don't violate accommodations and don't be exclusionary/ad hominem/discriminatory (no sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.; I'll give you the lowest speaks, drop you, and if necessary let your coach know)

Prefs Cheat Sheet:

Policy, K - 1

Trad - 2

Phil, Theory/T - 3

Tricks, Friv Theory - 4/5

Policy (LARP)

Pretty easy for me to resolve, and one of my favorites to judge. Please collapse in the 2nr, you probably shouldn’t be going for all 6 off. The aff should read a plan for this (even if its whole res), and should probably mention util/SV once in the 1ac for framing.

I’m so tired of having tags with just the word extinction and the card just says we have a couple energy shortages with no major implications. Read your evidence, cut better evidence, and don’t lie in your tags.

Explain the perm. I need more than perm do both with nothing else.

Counterplans are cool but make sure there’s a net benefit. I usually go for 3-4 counterplans in the 1NC and I don't buy condo bad in pretty much every instance unless it's like over 6 counterplans. I think rehighlights as adv counterplans are so good and the more planks, the better. Good counterplan debate>>>

Politics DAs are cool, just please have recent evidence and understand the position. I don’t want a card from 2021 saying Biden can’t win independents.

I love impact turns. The crazier, the better. I like debaters taking risks and I’m open to voting on literally anything. Spark is probably my favorite.

K

Good K debates are the best types of rounds, but bad K debates are frustratingly difficult to resolve (pre-scripted 2NRs loaded with buzz terms that don’t frame anything for my ballot)—know your lit base (theory of power, topic links, etc), make it meaningful. Also please have a clear link to the aff. A generic “the aff has the state” link is annoying.

I prefer alts that are more than just "reject the aff". I want to know what the alt actually looks like. And see some kind of material change. Refusal can be good but you have to do the work to explain what this actually looks like and why it matters. I’m familiar with most literature bases, but the more obscure, the more you're going to have to explain it. Some of my favorites are cap, set col, post colonialism, fem and Virilio. I'm probably a lot better than most for afropess. I have an unusually large amount of experience hitting afropess, so I have a really good understanding of the K. This means I'm also pretty good for other types of pess Ks.

K Affs

Love them. I think topical k affs are great, but non topical are too. If you’re going to be non topical, be prepared for generic responses (tfw). Once again, I want to see that the aff actually does something. I don’t care what it is, I just want to know that the aff does something. My personal favorite k aff is fem killjoy. If you’re going for an identity argument or anything debate bad, know the literature and the movement. Rambling about something to confuse your opponent is not fun. Performances are also cool, just bring them up throughout the round and use it. A poem just to confuse your opponent with no later mention is a waste of time.

K v K

A good K v. K round is great to watch, but this does take work on your part. I need some level of effort to evaluate. Please interact with one another, explain the perm, explain the alt, weigh between methods, etc. Absent this, I think it gets really messy for me to resolve.

Phil

Honestly, I’m probably not the best to evaluate these kinds of cases, but I have a fair amount of experience hitting them. I’d prefer a genuine phil position and not 3 min of spikes. I’m most familiar with Korsgaard/Kant, Virtue Ethics, Levinas, Heidegger, and Deleuze. I’m not a huge fan when there’s only a single card of offense. 2-4 is probably better. TJFs seem silly. AFC and ACC are bad arguments, the threshold for response is so low.

Theory/T

Not the best for this either, just because I find it difficult to resolve if the debate comes down to just multiplate friv shells. I don’t apply defaults in theory rounds. PLEASE WEIGH BETWEEN SHELLS. I don’t want to have to do this work for you. The sillier the shell, the lower threshold for response. PICs and condo are a good thing for debate, and probably not abusive.

Reasonability is always an option – similarly, I think it’s actually quite strategic to read reasonability as a paradigm issue for accessibility-type theory

Reading more than 2 shells in-round (on either side) will usually lead me to question your strategic decisions.

A lot of IVIs just aren't IVIs, please warrant how it is one and why it matters.

I think RVIs can be valid. I also think they can be stupid. Give good warranting to why you get one.

T is cool. I like shells a little more fleshed out than generic tfw or nebel. Running a tfw shell beyond just “aff must defend a policy” and going for it in the 2nr properly will give you high speaks. RVIs for T are not real.

Tricks

Not my favorite. Just explain why they actually mean you win. Honestly I have a low threshold for response because I don’t like them, but I won’t automatically vote against it. That being said, I think the grain paradox is super duper silly and I’d love to hear it.

If you're going to go for it, I understand ethical paradoxes within the time constraints of a debate round much better than logical formulae/dense logic equations—blitzing through a paragraph of “if p then q” will probably give me a headache.

Truth testing against Ks and K affs is not my favorite and a very uphill battle.

Disclosure

Disclosure is good for debate, but beating up on novices or trad debaters because they don’t know what the wiki is is not good for debate. I think the aff should be sent 30 min before the round (unless it's new) and your wiki should disclose positions from any bid tournament. This excludes novices or someone who doesn’t understand disclosure norms. Someone not disclosing their random Georgia local lay case is not abusive, and I’ll have a low threshold for theory. If they don’t have a wiki and clearly don’t understand disclosure norms, don’t run theory. It’s exclusive.

Trad

I mainly did this my novice and some of my second year. These debates are usually simple for me to resolve.

Please provide a coherent framework, with a v/vc structure. Freedom as a value and autonomy as a value criterion means nothing to me. I need to understand how your value connects to the resolution, and how the criterion actually provides a weighing mechanism. I think criterions that are “consistency with the constitution” are probably bad and problematic. Favorite trad frameworks are Rawls, util, and korsgaard. Winning framework doesn’t win the round. Engage with your opponents framework, but literally just agree they’re the same if they are similar. Use your time debating impacts, not whether maximizing well being or increasing pleasure is better. The impacts are going to win the debate here, not quality of life versus wellbeing.

I think link chains are really important here and proper warranting. A lot of evidence in trad rounds that I’ve seen has been horribly miscut or bracketed, with limited author credibility. I don’t want to hear your right wing think tank evidence. Please read the author last name and year before your card so I can flow it. The aff also needs some sort of solvency, implied solvency is not real.

Counterplans are fine in trad debate, but please have a counterplan text (what the cp advocates for). Also make sure the counterplan makes sense. For example, a multiplayer universal healthcare system as a counterplan to single payer universal healthcare makes sense. Solving all global poverty instead of doing the aff is silly.

Traditional rounds are easier to evaluate if you weigh, have clash, and give voters at the end, but are more difficult to resolve in the absence of crystallization in later speeches. Just engage with your opponent please. Weigh as early as possible to make this an easy round (1ac excluded). Tell me how to evaluate the round and vote.

Speaks

I don't listen to requests for speaks generally. If it's a good reason I might be persuaded.

I try and average a 28.5 with a scale of 27 to 30 for most normal rounds. I adjust my speaks based off of the pool.

Things I'll boost speaks for:

• If you commit to a traditional style and execute it well.

• If you run unique arguments and explain them well

• Using cross ex effectively (gain something, I don’t want 3 minutes of “what was your first contention again?”)

• Good rehighlights of 1AC/1NC evidence

Things I'll drop speaks for:

• Being a doc bot
• Clearly stealing something off the wiki and not understanding it (If it's someone else's rehighlights and it still says their name in the tag, I'll take off a speaker point)
• If you're obviously spreading analytics off a doc at full speed and not sending the doc
• Sending the 1NC before the 1AC starts

I am fairly new to the debate world, but I am a Language Arts teacher, so I value developed and well-reasoned arguments but do appreciate clear signposting. I value clarity over speed, though I don't mind if you speak quickly as long as you speak clearly.

Steer clear of fallacious thinking; it's a massive red flag. To me, the strongest arguments contain a variety of appeals and evidence. I also believe that the win lies in the clash; I want to see that you are listening closely to your opponent, thinking in the moment, and reacting directly and precisely.

I am currently a debate coach, and in high school I competed in Team Policy for 4 years, as well as Lincoln Douglas for a year. So I know most, if not all, debate language. I look for clear and reasonable argumentation, and a good clash. I do not like speed and spreading. Thank you!

I taught literature in college for more than a decade, and now I teach ancient and medieval history in high school. I'm looking for a clear and well-reasoned argument, along with respect and common ground between debaters. I do not like speed or spreading.

About Me:

Debater at Midtown High School in Ga. Experience in Both PF and Policy

• Time Yourself (I give some leniency on speeches and CX, but I'll stop flowing after about 10 secs past time)
• Weigh Impacts
• Extend Arguments if you want the judge to vote on them (Collapsing args in FF is ok)
• Have Fun

I realize this is a pretty bare bones paradigm (mostly because my approach to judging is fluid). I'll run you through some more detailed prefs before rounds. If you have any questions after the round, feel free to ask!

I debated PF and LD for The Lovett School in Atlanta, GA where I did both local and national circuit tournaments.

A few notes on how I tend to judge rounds:

Crossfire is important, but I expect any major concessions to be followed up on and extended in your next speech. If you think a concession from crossfire may become important later, you should summarize + extend it as soon as possible.

I'm ok with debaters being a little bit technical, but I don't want to see a policy round. In PF, I believe debaters should try to argue such that they could understood by someone with little to no debate experience. That being said, I will be flowing the round and using it heavily to evaluate who won- just don't spread or use a ton of debate-specific lingo. In PF, you need to be able to understand the argument and explain it in simple terms.

I will not run prep time for evidence exchange unless it's clearly being abused for extra prep time (in which case I will inform you that I am now running prep for everything). This goes both ways- if I feel that either side is being shady in their evidence practices, I will heavily deduct speaker points and become a lot more sympathetic to arguments that I should vote that side down because of their shadiness. However, I don't like voting for procedural arguments (I much prefer to see teams win the old-fashioned way unless absolutely necessary)

WEIGH. YOUR. ARGUMENTS. It's extremely important that you're giving me concrete reasons to vote for your side by comparing your impacts to your opponents'. It's nice to see in the earlier speeches, but it's absolutely essential in final focus. If neither side can give me a clear path to the ballot (or an obviously better path to the ballot), then I will most likely vote with my gut (i.e. vote on which side I felt argued better overall / evaluate the round more holistically)

For LD:

I'm fine with pretty much anything, but I may struggle with flowing + following your argument if you spread too fast (since I haven't been active in debate for a while). However, feel free to run K's, theory, or whatever you want.

I do prefer to see debates with more framework + philosophical debate. I believe it's core to LD as an activity, and I will look more favorably on arguments with well-developed philosophical positions (both when evaluating the round and when I'm giving out speaker points)

A few things about me (TLDR version):

Former debater at University of Georgia

Plans are good

Impact calculus is important. Tell me how to write my ballot.

Clarity > Speed

Cross-ex is binding

Have fun and don't be rude!

Long version:

Framework - I'm a good judge for framework. Debate is a game and framework is procedural question. I’m persuaded by negative appeals to limits and I think fairness is an impact in and of itself. I don’t think the topical version of the aff needs to “solve” in the same way the aff does. If there are DA's to the topical version of the aff, that seems to prove neg ground under the negative’s vision of debate. Tell me what your model of debate looks like, what negative positions does it justify, and what is the value of those positions.

Kritiks - I think it's really hard for the neg to win that the aff shouldn't get to weigh the plan provided the aff answers framework well. I've got a decent grasp on the literature surrounding critical security studies, critiques of capitalism, settler colonialism, and feminist critiques of IR. The aff should focus on attacking the alternative both at a substance and theoretical level. It's critical that the 2AR defines the solvency deficits to the alternative and weigh that against the case. Negative debaters should spend more time talking about the case in the context of the kritik. A good warranted link and turns the case debates are the best way for negative teams to get my ballot. Tell me how the links to the aff uniquely lead to the impacts.

Counterplans - They don't have to be topical. Whether you have a specific solvency advocate will determine if your counterplan is legitimate or not. There's nothing better than a well-researched mechanism counterplan and there's nothing worse than a hyper-generic process counterplan that you recycle for every negative debate on the topic. I generally think that 2 conditional options are good, but I can be persuaded by 3 condo is okay. PICs are probably good. Consult/Conditioning/delay counterplans, international fiat, and 50 state fiat are bad. Typically, if you win theory I reject the argument not the team unless told otherwise.

Disads- I love a good DA and case debate. I've gone for the politics DA a lot in my college career. Normally uniqueness controls the link, but I can persuaded otherwise. Impact calc and good turns cases analysis is the best!

Add me onto the e-mail chain, my email is miriam.mokhemar@gmail.com. If your computer crashes, stop the timer until you can get your doc back up.

Please speak clearly and audibly. If I cannot understand you or hear you it is as if you never said it.

Be respectful to one another.

Hello Debaters

I am a parent judge; this is my first year as a judging (3rd year being around). I expect good sportsmanship, respect and for you to enjoy your experience.

I prefer regular rate of speech; I can keep up with accelerated fluency, but my feedback will not be as thorough as it will be if your rate of speech of a conversation and not an auctioneer.

I will keep time and my time is final time.

I look for eye contact and appropriate expression that matches your understanding of your position.

I debated in HS for six years at a national level. Mostly TP but LD here and there.

I do not like speed and spread, and I like to see debaters develop their arguments. I will not vote on dropped arguments if you run speed and spread.

Please perform good impact calculus. I will disregard slippery-slope impacting regardless of whether or not the opponent responds!

I will flow a lot so please don't be nervous if you see me looking down, I promise I am listening!

Also, I particularly like a good CX. Enemy concession is the highest form of evidence because it is common ground! Use CX to develop ideas and identify common ground, and use those grounds in your argumentation!

Best of luck!!

My judging paradigm:

STRONG Preferences:

--standing to speak

--look at judge during cross - x

--time your opponent

--spreading is fine

-clearly sign-post your constructions! V and VC must be clearly indicated, as well as contentions and subpoints

--CLASH is KING