Personal Stuff

I'm John

Currently a junior at Montgomery Academy.

I'd prefer if you sent me case; add me to the chain: john_alford@montgomeryacademy.org

If you have any questions about me, my background, or my paradigm- I'll be happy to answer them at any time.

I'll gladly answer any questions you have in-round as long as it doesn't give either side a competitive advantage.

Notes for the novice tournament:

All of the above and below apply. With that being said, I expect traditional rounds with hopefully some policy scattered about. Remember that your opponent is also a novice so they'll be just as nervous as you are. Most of all, remember that your JUDGE knows that you are a novice and totally understands if you slip up, stutter, forget an argument, or don't know how to respond to your opponent's arg. Try to have fun bc this is a learning experience.

Traditional debates are won almost entirely on weighing. Weigh the framework properly, and implicate magnitude, probability, and time frame for contention level arguments.

If you don’t understand the below information, that’s totally okay.

General (in round) Important Stuff

TECH>TRUTH. I love weird arguments and will evaluate LITERALLY ANYTHING--BUT the weirder the argument the lower the threshold for responses.

If it isn't extended/isn't on my flow-->it doesn't exist.

If you don't respond to your opponent's claim-->it is true

I think speaker points are stupid. Obviously I'll give the better speaker more speaks. However, I'll boost or lower your speaks based on attitude, sportsmanship, and general debate decorum. If you make me laugh, I'll boost your speaks.

I'll be honest with my RFD. That being said, any criticism I give you is constructive :)

Don't post round me, I find it cringe. Also, I flow weird. My flow is usually really messy/hard to follow, so I wouldn't ask to inspect it with the intention to prove my decision wrong. I'm not the one you are debating LOL

Judging Preference (In order from most to least preferred):

~Note that my preferences have no effect on my decision and REMEMBER... I like everything~

1) LARP- I find it pretty middle of the pack in terms of how much I enjoy evaluating it. However, I probably have the best grasp of it considering I've used it a lot in the past. Framework is big. I'll basically evaluate the round however I'm told (given proper evidence and warrants). Otherwise, I'll just default to magnitude, probability, and timeframe (assuming framework or other influencers of my ballot are absent).

2) Trix- I enjoy trix the most. (I've run them quite a bit at national tournaments). However the more hyper-specific/ frivolous the trix are, the less likely I'll be to expect a well-fleshed-out response from your opponent. Trix aren't typically warranted so your opponent's response doesn't have to be warranted. They are super abusive, so if you read trix aginst a novice ur speaks will be trashed.

3) K/Critques- I love K debate. The reason I put it below LARP is because I wish I had more experience going against it. That being said, I understand ROJ/ROBs really well and Cap Ks are my bread and butter (if you run cap I'll probably give you good speaks). I want to see a well-fleshed-out identity K (Considering I decide whether or not you succeed, I don't default to debate being racist, homophobic, etc.). Have a clear ballot story..

4) Trad- I have no problem with trad but I enjoy it the least because it's boring. I don't think values have almost any function in debate so please don't spend a minute and a half on morality vs. justice. I need clear weighing and value criterion clash and probably err on the side of over-explanation in traditional debates.

5) Phil- I also have no problem with philosophical arguments. The reason it is ranked last is because I have NO experience with phil debate. However I will evaluate it fairly. I have a friend in love with phil so I sorta know what to expect. I've just never run it or competed against it.

General Notes About Debate Sub-Styles (in no specific order).

1) Speed- Speed's okay. Go as fast as you want but slow down on any analytics not in the doc. I'll say clear if you're too fast.

2) Prep time- Use it however you want, flex prep is cool as long as your opponent is fine with it.

3) Topicality - I love T. I evaluate the T flow before I evaluate anything else. I lean towards reasonability on T since there isn't an objective limit on the topic -> language is arbitrary.

4) Theory - I default to competing interps, no RVI's, DTD on shells against entire advocacy, drop the argument for everything else.

5) Disads - read them. Not a huge fan of 2 card DA's with UQ and an internal link in the same card but I'll still vote for it. I have a pretty high threshold for PTX DA's because I think they are especially egregious.

6) CP's - yes. default to 1-2 condo good unless convinced otherwise. PIC's probably fine if you can handle the perm debate.

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.

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!

Hello! My name is Mason Edwards. I went to Saint James School and was a former student of Dr. Ian Turnipseed. I did Public Form, extemporaneous speaking, impromptu, informative speaking, and congress in high school.

I’m gonna take notes from the debate. I like convincing arguments, clear rebuttals, and engaged delivery. The debater that does the best job of connecting with me, the judge, will probably win.

Have a good attitude, be respectful, and have fun!

Polished presentations include clearly articulated or annunciated language, points, and, when applicable, accessible evidence for review. I appreciate intentional movement that has a purpose for impacting information delivery. Thank you for all your dedication and effort! It is an honor for me to be a small part of your professional track, and I wish you all the best!

Hello, I’m Cal Floyd, first off, thanks for reading the paradigm, I’m just going to lay down some basic expectations/preferences for the debates

-I consider myself an experienced debater/judge, do with that what you will

-I can flow at any speed, so speak at what is comfortable, although please do not spread unless you are confident in your dictation

-Please signpost

-In PF, I will attempt to primarily judge off of the last 2 sets of speeches, so bring up any points you really want me to know

-I will most likely know of any contentions you dropped, dropped contentions will not be considered

-No personal attacks and/or mudslinging, please be polite

-There is room for humor in debate, I wouldn’t mind a joke or two (might even help speaks)

-Do not be Racist, Sexist, Homophobic, etc

If you have any more questions feel free to ask

Hi everybody! My name is Blaire and I mainly competed in PF and OO but have some experience in Congress. I currently attend Auburn University and am getting a bachelor's in Public Relations.

For PF rounds, I like arguments that are clear and packed with evidence. I will not flow cross so if you want to use something said you'll need to bring it up later in round. I will, however, take note of disrespect or aggressive communication at any point in round. The loudest/most aggressive team isn't guaranteed the win. As someone who has competed at NSDA Nationals 2023 in a speech event (OO), I appreciate good public speaking skills. I am anti-spreading. If I can not hear you clearly it doesn't matter how good your argument is. Confidence is key, if you believe you then I'll believe you. I'm not going to cut you off if you go over time but I will stop flowing and I won't take anything said after the timer ends into consideration for the win. I ask that y'all not interrupt the person speaking if they go over time. Do not bring up anything new in Final Focus, it will not be flowed. Don't waste precious time on something I can not flow, you only have two minutes. Don't forget to weigh in summary!!!

For Speech events, clarity is key. I love topics that are creative and unexpected. Passion is an important component and if I can tell you don't really care about what you're talking about it won't land as well as it could. Best advice I can offer for speech is to not overthink it, speak enthusiastically and be well-informed and you'll do just fine. If you mess up DON'T STOP! I'll only be able to tell if you let me. Just keep going.

For Congress, be articulate and professional. Please do not be aggressive towards other congressmen. PLEASE be aware of the procedure and rules of Congress before arriving.

If you have any questions for me please don't hesitate to ask! Good luck!

tldr standard flow judge

INFO

she/her. vestavia ’26. please just call me mina. email: sendyouranalytics@gmail.com

1 year pf + 1 year ld - highlights are breaking at emory and champ + top speaker at samford and state. i read mostly policy and theory. those are also the args i'm the most comfortable with evaluating.

my favorite free resources for learning circuit debate

NOVICE DEBATE

no bad spreading (keyword: bad).

arg preferences: i judge based off of arguments that are made in the round, but my record indicates that i have never voted against extinction o/w. do what you will with that information.

please: make sure you do basic debate stuff - extend, collapse, weigh, do lbl, and signpost. ngl if you don't know what those terms mean, you're not going to learn them in the 10 mins before a round so just do your best. obviously feel free to ask me stuff after the round.

pf stuff: defense is not sticky. being a pf debater does not exempt you from the standards for ev ethics. otherwise, i think i'm in agreement with most pf norms.

cx: it's binding, but i don't flow it. things said in cx go on my flow when it's mentioned in the nc/1ar as a complete argument. aggression is fine, disrespect is not.

speaks: please don't glaze me before the round for these, it's cringey. if you make good arguments and don't have an unbearable attitude, you should be fine.

<25 - you were violent and you're getting an L and an email to tab because a wise person once said "safety first warrants intervention". 25-26.9 - you have not done the bare minimum to be a good citizen of the debate community. 27-28.4 - below average. 28.5-29.9 - above average. 30 - what a good day to be you because your round put me in a really good mood.

disclosure: (OF MY DECISION:) disclosure of the decision, rfd, and feedback are a given. i hate non disclosure policies and will disclose unless we are late to the next round. (OF YOUR ARGUMENTS:) be so fr please. this is novice. the absolute best you will get out of disclosure theory is a W25.

postrounding: not really the best show of maturity, but go for it i guess. if my decision is so horrid that a random angry novice can change my mind, i probably deserve to be yelled at.

ev ethics: this should not be controversial or difficult. if your opponent calls you out for not having a cut card with a cite containing the author, date, title, publication, and url (if website) of a piece of evidence you read, you're getting an L25-26.9. if i call for a card (i will only do this if it is disputed and relevant to the decision) and notice this, i will tank your speaks accordingly but not give you an auto-L. false accusations of ev ethics will result in an L + whatever speaks i would have given otherwise, but i lean towards over-punishing than under-punishing. i highly recommend using the citecreator extension for easy automatic cites.

progressive args: i personally think that the novice division is not the place for these. however, i don't believe that i have the jurisdiction to draw an arbitrary line of what is and is not "too progressive." i'll evaluate them, but if you clearly don't know what you're talking about, i will be much less gracious with speaks (i.e. land you solidly in the 25-26.9 category). this is your first and last warning.

if you are very confident in your knowledge, i will be very happy with a well-executed (keyword there!!!) consult cp, rvi, ptx da, niche plan, or pic/da combo. i lean towards disliking T for everything but the most egregiously non-topical affs, but you can read it. i'm not ideologically opposed to k, phil, or trix in any way but i'm not the most experienced with them (so read at your own risk).

Hi I am Camp. I graduated at Montgomery Academy. I have done LD, PF, and WSD but mainly LD for 3 years. I prefer tech over truth. More than less, I was a trad debater, but do whatever you want as long as it is 1) topical 2) well explained. I can handle speed but do not spread unless you drop the doc to me and your opponent. I will vote a lot off of the framework debate. In your last speech please collapse on the arguments I should be voting off of. I prefer using speechdrop.net but my email is cmj0068@auburn.edu

Notes:

I prefer topic debate. I am not a fan of theory or meta based debate (time/prep skew or burden-based arguments). Disclosure is the debater's choice, and it is your choice to post your stuff on the wiki. That being said I have run theory and understand it at least a little. If there is something clearly concerning that has happened in round, go ham with a theory arg.

Crossfire and rebuttals can get heated, but it is an instant loss if you are derogatory toward your opponent’s character or identity that doesn’t impact cases.

Keep your own time

I don’t flow cross, bring up anything important in the next speech

I probably won’t disclose unless I have to

I love extinction but in truth it is not an end all - be all argument. I will not vote up a 1% extinction scenario with very few warrants vs a very well fleshed out structure violence case despite what you say about the “greater good”. Rounds are won on evidence and clash

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.

Abigail Montgomery, Samford University

5th semester debating at Samford.
Recycledearth03@gmail.com

DO NOT steal prep time!

Things that are prep time:

• Any time you are not giving a constructive, CX, rebuttal, or roadmap.
• Putting your speech doc together - including saving doc, setting up email chain, attaching it to the email, etc.
• Asking for cards outside of CX time.
• Flowing before the timer starts.

MACRO-ISSUES

Clarity: Please, please, please do not spread if you are not capable of doing so. If you aren't able to enunciate all your words, that is evidence you need to slow down. While I am all for being fast, if you are unable to do so clearly, do not make an attempt. Speed is not the key to winning a debate.

Speaker points: Points are influenced by a variety of factors, including, but not limited to: Communication skills, speaking clarity, road-mapping, stealing prep time, quality of CX, strategy, and execution.

Flowing:
• I flow.
• I evaluate the debate based primarily on what I have flowed.
• I frequently flow CX.
• I make more effort to get the arg than I do the cite or date.
• Roadmap and signpost

Evidence:
• Evaluate and compare claims and evidence in the debate.
• I don’t like to read evidence if I don’t feel the argument has been communicated to me

K: I am a policy debater, but I love the K (anything from Baudrillard to Rage). I view debate as a space for education, activism, and social justice. For K debaters, you must win your alt is better for advancing causes of social justice. The same applies for theory violations. Win that your approach and your argument deserve to win because of the impact it has.

Some things to be aware of:

1) My decisions are neutral and unbiased, which will be reflected in all comments/critiques I make. If you feel I have been unfair, you are welcome to talk to me after the debate.

2)I have a low tolerance for rude, snarky comments made in my presence. I don't care if it is during the debate or not, be nice.

3) Fairness is an impact.

4) A “dropped” argument is only true if it was explained properly.

5) If you read "death good", I will vote against you. If you trivialize human tragedy, I will vote against you. If you are racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, or sexist, I will vote against you.

6) Explain why the CP differs from the plan.

PF & LD

Use an email chain with me on it. Do not drop line by line to summarize your arguments. I'm more likely to vote for the team that interacts with the other teams' arguments to accelerate their own. I'm fine with CPs, DAs, plans, etc. if you want to run them. Impact calc is a must and make sure you collapse down to your best arguments in the summary. Don't waste time on insignificant arguments you're not going for. You must explain the warrants of the evidence you read. I will not accept the extension of a tag.

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!

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

Hello! My name is TJ Riggs and I'm a Junior Policy Debater at Samford University (Qualed to NDT 2022 and 2023) and head coach of the SpeakFirst debate team. I have been debating since sophomore year of high school at both the state and national level. I always try my best to avoid intervention and I will generally weigh tech over truth. That being said, I reserve the right to gut check egregiously false claims. I am a pretty active listener, so if you see me nodding my head then I am probably vibing with your args. If I look confused or unconvinced you'll probably see it on my face. I look forward to judging you!

INCLUDE ME ON THE EMAIL CHAIN: tjriggs03@gmail.com

Below is a more comprehensive list of my judging preferences:

1 - LARP/Policy

2 - Trad

3 - K's

4 - Dense Phil

Strike - Tricks

Preferences (LD):

Traditional (V/VC Framework): Traditional debate is where I got my start, and I always love hearing a solid traditional round. Framework is important, however I also heavily value the impact debate. Explicitly tell me why under your framework your impacts matter. Being able to tie your case together is essential.

Dense Phil: Eh, not really my favorite. I am generally unconvinced that intentions matter more than consequences in the face of extinction level scenarios. Not to say I won't vote on it but I probably should not be at the top of your pref sheet.

Tricks: Tricks are really stupid and bad for debate. I honestly don't even really care if your opponent just refuses to acknowledge them the whole round, I'm still probably not going to drop them for it. Go ahead and strike me :)

Adv/DA: Easy, clean debate. Please clearly announce when you are moving to the next advantage or disadvantage. If you are reading an advantage aff please read a plan, even if it’s “Plan: Do The Res”.

CP: Counterplans are always nice. Run them as you please, and I’m happy to listen. I don't love PIC's in LD but I will listen to them. 1 or 2 condo is probably ok, more than that starts to push it. 3+ contradictory options and it starts getting bad for you (NOTE: New affs probably justify infinite condo).

Theory/T: Theory and T are fine as long as it’s reasonably warranted. Topicality really has to be warranted or I’m not going to drop them for it. I think topic relevant definitions are important, I probably won't drop them because your dictionary.com definition of "the" meaning "all" probably won't convince me they aren't topical. Please make sure you are familiar with the format of Theory and T shells, don’t run them if you aren’t. I will listen to RVI arguments (LD not Policy). I will listen to Frivolous Theory because it is your time and you can do with it as you please but I won't give you the round over it, so its most likely a waste of your breath.

Kritiks: Topical Kritiks are fine. Non-topical Kritiks are not my favorite but if it is properly warranted i'll vote on it. Familiar with most standard K lit, anything fancy please explain well.

Preferences (Public Forum):

Email Chains: Up to debaters if they would like to chain.

Evidence Standard: Not a fan of paraphrasing. Let the experts who wrote your cards do the talking for you. I won't instantly drop you for paraphrasing ev, but I will read the evidence and am open to arguments from your opponent as to why paraphrasing is bad. Excessive exaggeration of what your evidence says will hurt your speaker points and possibly even your chance at the ballot.

Extending Arguments: Please argue the substance of your ev, not just the taglines. I am going to be much more inclined to buy your evidence if you thoughtfully explain why it specifically answers parts of the flow. Just saying "Extend Riggs 2021" is not sufficient. Carry your arguments through the flow, I should be able to draw a line from your constructive to your final focus and see the argument evolve throughout the round.

Speech Preferences:

Speed: I'm cool with any speed. Spreading is fine, but please articulate. If I can not understand you I will say "clear". Please do not go faster than you are capable of, many arguments can be made just as well by slowing down and sticking to the point.

Speaker Points: Clarity is key for speaks. Please be respectful to your opponent, being rude will result in points being docked.

If you have any questions about my judging style, experience, or preferences, please feel free to email me at tjriggs03@gmail.com

Hey, I'm Kailan, a varsity LD and POI debater who occasionally does PF! I've debated for about five years and love to judge and provide feedback. I have a few simple ground rules for each round!

For LD:

If spreading please start an email chain, my email address is kailans2006@gmail.com.

I am not a trad judge, I love unique cases. If you have anything other than UTIL feel free to run it LOL. Just have good links, cards, and rebuttals.

Framework debate!!

For All:

Don't rush. Take your time unless your speed is intentional. If I can't hear, I can't flow. Avoid high speeds in speeches other than constructive UNLESS you're reading cards during.

I don't flow cross & I love impact calc.

I'll keep time, but I highly suggest you keep your own

& during speeches and cross be sure to make some type of eye contact with me. Also, standing is negotiable and up to personal preference. I don't mind sitting as long as you are making eye contact and communicating effectively.

That's all see you guys in round!

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

--------

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

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

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

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

--------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--------

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

Hey guys,

My name is Kayla, I'm a sophomore at Auburn University majoring in Law and Justice and marketing. I did PF debate for about 2 years throughout high school and will be continuing in college.

PF debate:

As for my judging, I like to think I'm not too strict. Just do not spread; speak clearly and loudly, be organized. Please make sure you have a reliable source for your information and make sure to state it when you are speaking. I do not write down anything from cross unless it is mentioned in summary or in rebuttal. Remember not to bring in new information in final focus. I will be timing as well, but just to be safe I would recommend you keep track of your own time. I also like provide feedback at the end of the debate, everything I say will be typed out on the ballots if you would like to refer to some notes. Finally, use all of your time, even if you're just dragging onto what you already said. I look forward to meeting you guys, and goodluck (: !