Joe Blasdel

McKendree University / Belleville East High School

Updated: 1/7/23

I competed in parliamentary debate and individual events from 1996 to 2000 for McKendree University. After three years studying political science at Syracuse University, I returned to coach at McKendree in 2003 (mostly NPDA, some LD and IEs) and have been doing so ever since. I have also coached debate at Belleville East (PF and LD) for the last two years.

This is broken into four sections: #1 PF Specifics, #2 HS LD specifics, #3 NFA LD specifics, #4 NPDA / general thoughts.

#1 PF Specifics

Here are some helpful things for you to know about me in terms of judging HS PF (in no particular order):

1. I will carefully flow the debate. This means it is important for you to carefully answer your opponents' arguments as well as extend arguments in rebuttals that you want me to evaluate. I will also flow the debate on three 'sheets' - the PRO case/answers, the CON case/answers, and the rebuttals (summaries/final foci).

2. I will not flow crossfire but I will still pay careful attention and view it as an important part of the debate.

3. I don't have any particular expectations about rate of delivery - faster, slower, etc. is fine.

4. If you have other questions, feel free to peruse my more extensive parli philosophy below or ask before the debate.

I look forward to judging you.

#2 HS LD Specifics

Here are some helpful things for you to know about me in terms of judging HS LD (in no particular order):

1. I have researched and coached students on the current NSDA topic and am broadly familiar with the issue.

2. I will carefully flow the debate. This means it is important for you to carefully answer your opponent's arguments as well as extend arguments in rebuttals that you want me to evaluate. I will flow the debate on three 'sheets' - framework, AFF case/answers, NEG case/answers.

3. I view the value/value criterion portion of the debate as framing the rest of the debate. When the framing part of the debate is not clear, I generally default to a cost/benefit analysis in evaluating the substance part of the debate.

4. I don't have any particular expectations about rate of delivery - faster, slower, etc. is fine.

5. If you have other questions, feel free to peruse my more extensive parli philosophy below or ask before the debate.

I look forward to judging you.

#3 NFA LD Specifics

Here are some helpful things for you to know about me in terms of judging NFA LD (in no particular order):

1. During the debate, I will flow what's being said rather than read the speech docs. I will review speech docs between speeches and after the round.

2. While carded evidence is obviously important in this format, I also appreciate warranted analytic arguments - probably more than the average NFA LD judge.

3. Having not judged a lot of LD of recent, I'm unsure if I can flow the fastest of debates. If I cannot flow due to clarity or speed, I will indicate that's the case.

4. If you have other questions, feel free to peruse my more extensive parli philosophy below or ask before the debate.

#4 NPDA / General thoughts

Section 1: General Information

In a typical policy debate, I tend to evaluate arguments in a comparative advantage framework (rather than stock issues). I am unlikely to vote on inherency or purely defensive arguments.

On trichotomy, I tend to think the affirmative has the right to run what type of case they want as long as they can defend that their interpretation is topical. While I don’t see a lot of good fact/value debates, I am open to people choosing to do so. I’m also okay with people turning fact or value resolutions into policy debates. For me, these sorts of arguments are always better handled as questions of topicality.

If there are new arguments in rebuttals, I will discount them, even if no point of order is raised. The rules permit you to raise POOs, but you should use them with discretion. If you’re calling multiple irrelevant POOs, I will probably not be pleased.

I’m not a fan of making warrantless assertions in the LOC/MG and then explaining/warranting them in the MO/PMR. I tend to give the PMR a good deal of latitude in answering these ‘new’ arguments and tend to protect the opposition from these ‘new’ PMR arguments.

Section 2: Specific Inquiries

Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given).

Typically, my range of speaker points is 27-29, unless something extraordinary happens (good or bad).

How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?

I’m open to Ks but I probably have a higher threshold for voting for them than the average NPDA judge. I approach the K as a sort of ideological counterplan. As a result, it’s important to me that you have a clear, competitive, and solvent alternative. I think critical affirmatives are fine so long as they are topical. If they are not topical, it’s likely to be an uphill battle. As for whether Ks can contradict other arguments in the round, it depends on the context/nature of the K.

Performance based arguments…

Same as above.

Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?

Having a specific abuse story is important to winning topicality, but not always necessary. A specific abuse story does not necessarily mean linking out of a position that’s run; it means identifying a particular argument that the affirmative excludes AND why that argument should be negative ground. I view topicality through a competing interpretations framework – I’m not sure what a reasonable interpretation is. On topicality, I have an ‘average’ threshold. I don’t vote on RVIs. On spec/non-T theory, I have a ‘high’ threshold. Unless it is seriously mishandled, I’m probably not going to vote on these types of arguments.

Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? Functional competition?

All things being equal, I have tended to err negative in most CP theory debates (except for delay). I think CPs should be functionally competitive. Unless specified otherwise, I understand counterplans to be conditional. I don’t have a particularly strong position on the legitimacy of conditionality. I think advantage CPs are smart and underutilized.

In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?

All things being equal, I evaluate procedural issues first. After that, I evaluate everything through a comparative advantage framework.

How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighing claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?

I tend to prefer concrete impacts over abstract impacts absent a reason to do otherwise. If there are competing stories comparing impacts (and there probably should be), I accept the more warranted story. I also have a tendency to focus more heavily on probability than magnitude.

Debate is a community, and I expect debaters to be cordial and polite to one another in round.

Debate is an activity based on persuasion, logic, and clear communication. As such, I am open to all hearing all forms of arguments in a debate, but arguments promoting racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc. will not do well on my ballot. Debate in the style you prefer and with the best strategy—over-adapting to judge preferences usually ends poorly.

I am a flow judge that prefers line-by-line argumentation. But if you do not go line-by-line, signposting is essential. Use language within the cases to signpost where you are in the flow.

Arguments:

Arguments should be well-researched and supported through logical links and evidence. Arguments that have the most weight in the round are the ones that have a clear claim, warrant, impact and data. Link stories are important and should be clearly identified.

Focus on impacts. Terminal impacts are important and get most of the focus, but low scale impacts are important too. Impact calc provides justification for why your arguments are important and outweigh your opponents. If you want to prove that your side is net beneficial, engage in comparable impac calc throughout the round and especially in your voters.

Arguments do not always have to have evidence, but the highest quality arguments usually have evidence. If you have evidence, but no analytical extension it defeats the purpose. Having too many cards is better than no cards. If you fabricate evidence, it is an ethical issue and voting issue on my ballot.

If an argument is dropped explain why that should impact my ballot. I’ll flow it through.

Clash:

Provide interpretations and counter interpretations. If you do not counter the interpretation provided, it is assumed you agree.

Clash with the opponent’s case and evidence is essential. Provide clash on the framework at the top of the flow and throughout the opponent’s case. It is a great strategy to counter the interpretation of the opponent’s evidence/card and explain why it is misinterpreted or turn it to your side.

Extend and cross-apply arguments. Go line by line and explain the clash and why your side is winning. Avoid shallow rebuttals.

Speed:

I am fine with spreading as long as you are clear. If you go too fast and do not clearly tag arguments making it difficult to follow your speech, I will not put it on the flow. Speed is only effective if it is also clear (enunciate, signpost, etc.). This is a dialogic activity and a solid debate is only as good as the clarity of the arguments presented.

I believe debate is a communication event. If I can't keep up with you, you lose.

Hello everyone!

When it comes to debate my philosophy is usually Tabula Rasa. I do not assume any particular paradigm but instead I want you to show me why your argument should be voted on. One thing that I personal enjoy the most with debate is that you are having fun! I think debate is such a fun sport/activity. Even though debate can be competitive, it should be a dreadful event. Instead it should be a time to have fun and share your knowledge and skills with others.

When it comes to platform speeches, I am very traditional in the sense that persuasive language should be avoided in the informative speeches and vice versa. Remember that your informative speech needs to be unbiased.

For limited prep events, I want to see clear organization with main points, subpoints, transitions, etc. The limited prep events should be interesting and provide a new/interesting perspective on the topic/quote.

The interpretive events (Duo, Prose, POI, POE, DI, etc.) I like to see solid character development. I want to see you embody the character/s both physically and mentally. It should not sound it should not sound like you are reading, but you are truly the character you a trying to portray. I do look into how well you are changing your tone, rate, and pitch of your voice.

Most important, you all should be very proud of all the hard work you put into these events. I know that this takes a lot of time a dedication. Even if you don’t win a round, keep your head up and learn from your experiences to do better. You are all brilliant students who are capable of doing amazing things. 

Love good speaking, strong argumentation, and a little humor here and there. Kindness is king in IPDA so being rude can cause you to lose my ballot. Don't run preponderance of the evidence in front of me; I care about actual argumentation, not just evidence. Also, I do not like spreading and speeding as I think they go against the accessibility of IPDA. If you want to win my ballot, don't get caught up in the technicalities or terminology; just make a better argument.

Background

First, I want to be up front with you about my forensics experience and debate background. I am currently the Director of Forensics at Truman State University (2022-present), primarily responsible for coaching the IE squad. My background is largely in IE; I competed in speech throughout all 4 years of high school (Richwoods High School - Peoria, IL, 2010), on the two-year circuit (Illinois Central College – East Peoria, IL), and transferred to the four-year circuit in 2012 (North Central College – Naperville, IL). I received the National Champion title in Dramatic Interp at NFA in 2013, and was National Champion in Informative Speaking at PKD in 2014. After college, I coached IEs while getting my MA from Northern Illinois University, then left the forensics community between 2016-2021 while working on my Ph.D. in Communication at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. I have been at Truman since fall 2021.

I have limited debate judging experience.

Preferences

When it comes to judging debate rounds, I come in pretty much as a blank slate. My IE experience leads me to prefer hearing more of the argumentation guiding the claims in the debate, rather than rushing through your speeches to get more information in. I love the performative and stylistic elements of this activity, but I have to understand the debate in order to judge it. I want you to spell out the connections of your evidence to your argument and understand the links you are making, then be able to explain those to me intelligibly. I want you to be respectful of your opponent, but I do enjoy a little competitive banter. I like when arguments are logically and validly critiqued and hearing competitors’ responses to their opponent’s questions/concerns.

On top of coherence, I will look towards other public speaking aspects to form my opinion about who is most persuasive in the round. This of course includes the argumentative elements that are said in the debate, but also the ways in which competitors engage their opponents, the judge(s), and other elements that factor into a speaker’s credibility (e.g., confidence, tone, nonverbal cues, etc.).

I enjoy hearing “weird” case arguments that analogize or extend the debate topic to other fields/concepts/issues, but will always prefer these arguments be within the scope or vicinity of the respective NFA-LD resolution for the year. As the opponent, if you think we shouldn’t adjust how we frame the debate, please argue why. I want you to persuade me on how I should judge the round. If you present an argument that needs further explanation or knowledge to understand, please provide it.

That being said, I do not particularly enjoy seeing documents specifically titled “lay case” or anything similar that denotes my potential for understanding you. Please don’t confuse my lack of debate experience with an incapacity to think critically about arguments. Use your regular case, then make arguments in the debate clearer if you think they are too complicated to understand for a particular judge, but you wouldn’t call your constituents dumb to their face if you were running for a public office.

I will not know right away what you are saying if you throw lots of technical jargon into the debate, but may be able to pick up what you mean by context clues. This is a risk you can take if you wish.

I will download case documents in the round and will judge the round based on what happens in the debate itself. I will not necessarily go back and look at evidence later, unless in cases of suspected or alleged rule violations. I try to provide clear reasons for my decision on the ballot, but if you ever have any concerns or questions, please reach out – bdavis@truman.edu.

Be a decent human in round. It’s educational, it’s fun, don’t demean your opponent or be rude for the sake of a performance. If it is clear that you are not following this, you have been warned.

What I vote on.

I will vote on a lot of things so long as you can argue it well. Not tag arguments and read them word for word, but actually argue them and weigh them against your opponent’s arguments in the debate. I will vote on K’s. I will vote on T. I will vote on theory. I will vote on impact calculus. Just argue your point well and make the debate a debate and not two sides talking at two separate walls.

General things.

I have experience both doing debate in a number of styles and in IEs, also a number of styles. Weigh your impacts for yourself. I think it’s far better for you to do the work and have me, as a judge, hear you advocate for it than for you to rely on my perspective going through the round. I will flow throughout the round. I am okay with speed but I am mindful of those who rely on spreading the other out of the round and focus too heavily on speed versus good arguments. Being fast does not mean you will win, but it doesn’t mean you will lose either. I like all kinds of arguments to be made so do what you are comfortable with whether that’s a case-heavy debate, DAs, CPs, Ks, FW, T, or anything else. Be a nice human and enjoy the experience.

If you have any other specific questions, don’t be afraid to ask. I am not intimidating and want you to enjoy what you do and what you present. Have a good round!

My name is Ekow Kakra and I'm an international graduate student in the Missouri State University Communication Department. Prior to this season, my debate experience was limited to an audience member and subsequently a judge. I judged several NFA-LD (as well as parli and IE) rounds in the 2022 Derryberry Season Opener, and the 2022 Missouri Mule. I also judged rounds in this year’s MAFA tournament at Marshall.

I expect debaters will be respectful to all in the room. Given that, I will vote affirmative if the unique benefits of the affirmative plan (beyond what a CP could solve) outweigh the unique disadvantages of adopting that plan. If the negative wins that the plan doesn't meet the best (or reasonable) interpretation of the topic, or a kritik shifts the debate focus, then the ballot will reflect that instead.

Regarding counterplans, I'm comfortable with net benefits competition (CP avoids the DA and solves some of the case) - but with any other approach to competition or internal net benefits, you will need to be explained very clearly and directly why the CP alone is better than doing both.

Regarding DA's, I'm okay with any sort of DA. As an international student, I would prefer that debaters avoid jargons that are unfamiliar or peculiar to US politics. When they are used, I expect debators to offer brief explanation of the term. Explain links, internal links, impacts, and terms of art clearly and compare it assuming the aff wins a bunch of their impact.

Regarding topicality, I start with definitions/interpretation, and then move on to plan text and solvency evidence. Negative needs to clearly win the violation, but not necessarily unique abuse. Interpretation is based both on clarity of the line drawn and what it would do for both sides over a full season of debate.

Regarding kritiks, you need to clearly prove the affirmative is critically (not tangentally) dependent on the link that you critique. I'm open to the kritik framework changing the topic of the debate so long as you are clear about the alternative framework (including win conditions for both sides), starting in the constructives.

Considering my experience, I do not capture a lot of details in my flow sheet, as such I prefer that debaters avoid going top speed. I inform debaters to be attentive to my nonverbals (like raising my hand) which indicate my difficulty in hearing or speeding on their side.

A few likes and dislikes I have found over tournaments this season:

A few likes is debaters talking with confidence, being organized in terms of preparation, as well as in their delivery and argumentation, and courteousness in criticizing opponents.

A few dislikes include sarcastic and disrespectful gestures towards opponents, too much speed in delivery, and use of unfamiliar words or jargons without explaining.

Initially, I expect students to be well-prepared, thorough, and articulate. I expect students to utilize reliable, recent, and relevant sources to the arguments that they are presenting.

Second, I encourage students to provide clash by directly responding to their opponent's case. Clash is extremely important. Clash on the framework/criterion debate is absolutely essential! Put yourself in the best position to succeed by including a framework. If not, I will weigh the debate using my own discretion rather than a judging mechanism provided by your side. Please explicitly state this criterion at the start of the debate AND continue to discuss it throughout the course of the debate.

Thirdly, impacts truly matter. Explain why the arguments that you're making are important. Why should economic stability be preferred over foreign aid? Give good justification for why your impacts have more weight than your opposition. This is absolutely essential to get my vote.

Fourth, this community is centered around inclusivity and providing each student with an opportunity to speak. Please do not speed. This can be EXTREMELY exclusive and prevent your judges/opponents from hearing your arguments. This can disproportionately impact certain individuals. This activity prides itself on dialogue, but spreading/speeding reduces the chance of having a solid debate. If you do speed, I will listen, however, if I miss something, that is on you. I will not evaluate arguments that are not on the flow. Finally, if your opponent says clear and you do not slow down, I will put my pen down until you slow down.

Lastly, I am good with tech. You can run any argument with me. I love hearing K's, topicalities, or any unique arguments, but I need you to explain why it is important. Make all arguments accessible to your judges AND your opponents.

My competitive background is mainly in parli, but I judged LD throughout the 17/18 season and have been head coach of an NFA-LD program since 2018.

Debate is ultimately a communication endeavor, and as such, it should be civil and accessible. I don't like speed/spreading. I can handle a moderate amount especially as I follow along with your doc (I want to be included on speechdrop, email chains, etc.), but there are two good ways to know when it's too much: 1) the point at which you’re gasping for air/doing big double breaths or 2) if you have to raise your voice an octave higher to maintain the pace. I will call speed if necessary, ignore it at your own risk. If your opponent asks you not to speed and you spread them out of the round, I will drop you -- even if you won the flow. Same with being rude or disrespectful. Debate is already scary and no one wants to be spoken to like they're stupid. Being a jerk in-round will lose my ballot.

I will vote on anything* (with one exception below). Topicality debates are fine. I don't like when it's used solely as a time skew, but when it is necessary, I want you to engage in the standards debate and make it specific to the round. Warrant your claims, give examples. I don't need proven abuse, but I do need a vision of why your interpretation is better for debate.

I will vote on Ks. I enjoy a good critical argument, but don’t assume I’m familiar with all of your literature. Make the link story clear and specific to the round in the 1NC. I want to hear a well-developed alternative, one that's not super vague. If your alt is essentially just to reject the aff, tell me what that's going to accomplish, impact it out. The role of the ballot is really important for Ks.

My favorite types of rounds are ones that engage in direct clash and cover the flow.

* I will not listen to an 'extinction good' argument. I will submit the ballot for your opponent and leave the room immediately. In addition to just being a bad idea, I find the argument to be violent and inappropriate for the debate space. Enough people (including myself) deal with suicidal ideation on a regular basis and no one should be subjected to that idea for a competitive win. It's gross.

I have 8 years of debate experience; I participated in Public Forum Debate in High School, and then in college participated in PF, NPDA, and IPDA. I have been judging and coaching for two years.

I am a flow judge. I will flow everything you say (and nothing you don’t say). Don’t bring new arguments up in your last speeches, I will not flow them. I will utilize the flow to help finalize my RFDs.

I will not tolerate spreading or speeding. The purpose of debate is to persuade the judge, if I cannot understand what you are saying, I will not flow it and you will not persuade me. I will give one chance to slow down, if the competitor continues spreading or speeding, I will put my pen down and they will lose my ballot.

I want to see good clash between opponents, I want opponents to be respectful of each other, and I want to hear some good persuasion!

Help your judge vote for you:

I really dislike competitiors who are arrogant and are rude about it to their opposition. I do not care how much experience you have or how many awards you have won. Everyone has an equal opportunity at winning the round. And when you are rude it just makes your judge not want to vote for you.

Look I debated in CEDA back in the day. But I am old now so I do not flow as fast as I used to. So speed at your own risk. I will try and catch it all. But it is your job to make sure it is on my flow. And if it is not on my flow then it is not in the round and I can not vote on it. Also being clear helps when you are trying to get something on my flow.

You should sign-post and give me the road map at the beginning of your speech. But you MUST also tell me where you want me to flow arguments in your speech. For example when you are finished with answering the topicality and you want me to start flowing on the Disadvantage then tell me you are moving on to the DISAD!!!

So for debates that involve carded evidence - I flow tag lines. I do not flow authors ever. Its your opponents job to PIMP the card if needed. That means if you tell me to cross apply or pull the smith card, I will have no idea what I am pulling. Additionally, since I only flow the tag line a good rule of thumb is to slow down on the tag line and then you can speed as fast as you want through the card.

Line by Line is just better debate strategy for you. If the negative runs a Disad with 7 arguments and you answer each one directly that is line by line. What is not line by line is just running 20 answers on the Disad and having me guess what arguments they apply to. That is not line by line and since you did not specifically tell me it was against a particular argument I may not apply it how you want to. And most importanatly, those arguments you did not specifically answer are dropped and can be pulled in the last rebuttal by your opposition for the win.

One major mistake that good debaters make is that they assume that I understand the theory argument, disad, or critique they just ran. I am not a computer. I do not know everything. Chances are I do not understand what you just ran. So explain it to me because it is hard to vote on what I do not understand. Never assume.

The one thing that I am given as a judge is the resolution. Do not forget that I am voting affirmative or negative on that resolution. If you wish me to do something different then you must clearly point that out and have justification for that. The resolution is always my default as to what I am voting on.

I do not vote on new arguments in last rebuttals. New answers to what your opposition just said are still new, they are just permissable new arguments. But I still do not vote on those by themselves. Which means you need to pull the original arguments from the Case, Disad or Topicality if you want me to vote on it. Just answering some things is not enough. Never abandon the line by line in the last rebuttal. We did all this work on the flow for a reason. You must pull the arguments into the last rebuttal in order to win it. If it is not in the last rebuttal I will assume you have dropped it or kicked it.

Debate is Debate - I do not judge any style different than the other. Telling me that a style does not require the burden of rejoinder is nonsence. The very core of debate is that one side makes an argument and the other side should make an argument against it. Without it an absurd result is created where a debater could fail to respond to an argument and expect that I was prohibited from evaluating it at all because they "don't have to respond". The burden of rejoinder is inherent in debate. If you do not want to lose that argument then you do have to respond to it or the otherside can pull it in the last rebuttal and ask me to vote on it. Without the burden of rejoinder you no longer have debate. SMH!!!

Kelsey Schott (BA, MA, JD candidate) kelseyrschott@gmail.com; kelsey.schott@simpson.edu

US Director, Debate Camp (www.debatecamp.com)

Drake University Law School, JD Candidate '25

Communication Graduate Student, Assistant Debate Coach, Ball State University ‘21

Eastbourne College Debater in Residence, British Parliamentary Coach ‘19

Simpson College, competed in Parliamentary & Public Forum Debate ‘18

PF / LD

I will flow the entire round and use my flow to determine the round. I can follow speed most of the time and if I’m not writing you should slow down. Please make sure your opponents are okay with speed before the round to ensure fairness and education for everyone.

I like framework arguments especially when they’re done well. Both sides should address framework arguments if they are presented and carry them through all speeches for me to fully consider them. Please present net-benefits and impacts in the round. I favor debaters who articulate why their argumentation matters. I often vote off impacts and impact calculus.

Please use your summary speech to clarify and actually summarize the round. I view additional line-by-line argumentation in summary speeches unnecessary. You should use this speech for any clarifications on the flow that need to be made to solidify areas of heavy clash. I favor summary speeches that lay the groundwork for the final focus and introduce voters. Your final focus should only be used to give me reasons to vote for you. Give me a couple reasons why you won the round not why your opponents lost the round. I like our world vs their world analysis of the round to show me who outweighs on voters.

I will give speaker points on a 24-30 scale. Unless I am totally offended or you insulted an opponent, I will not go below 24. I will only give a 30 if I think you were one of the best speakers at the tournament. [unless otherwise directed by TAB]

I like rounds that are fun and contribute to the educational value of the activity!

The first thing you should know is that I am a professor who teaches rhetoric and argument, but I am not a debate coach and I have not debated in a long, long time. I understand how debate works, but I am not familiar with the jargon, acronyms, or the culture.

I am probably pretty old school when it comes to what I prefer in a debate. I think public speaking skills matter. I think adapting to your audience matters. I understand the necessity for speed on occasion, but if I can't understand what you're saying, I can't flow your arguments. I look for direct clash during the debate. Good signposting is essential for this. I like it when debaters clearly identify what they see as the voting issues and why they have won them. Also, I am not a fan of kritiks.

i competed in individual events for six years (two in high school and four in college). i have coached individual events for four years, debate a few times over those four years, and have judged across multiple formats of collegiate debate

spent four years at a university with a heavy presence on the nfa-ld circuit, so i can follow policy debate to an extent. if you're going too fast for me to follow, you won't get quality feedback. i don't know all the debate terminology and if you're just dropping all these terms and speaking super fast, i am not going to be able to flow you and will get super overwhelmed. that's not fun for either of us <3

note: spreading is waaaaaay harder to follow online than it is in-person. if i'm judging you online be conscious of this

i study rhetoric so argumentation is a pleasure of mine. that is not to say i am an expert! most of the time, you will have a firmer grasp on what's going on in the round than i do. unfortunately (for both of us), i'm the one whose opinion has control over your competitive success. i take that role very seriously and will do my best to make the most informed decision i can. if you disagree with that decision, just know that i'm some random dude who was given a ballot and you're entitled to that feeling. above all else, please be kind to yourself

love critical arguments of all kind. treat other humans with respect. don't be a jackass

- former college debater & grad assistant coach (NPDA, IPDA, Discussion, Worlds, PF)

POLICY DEBATE:

- not a fan of speed / spreading the opponent out of the round. Quality over quantity, persuade me. SLOW DOWN when you read your plan.

- debate is an educational activity first, and I will vote on fairness/ education voters if they arise

- prefer stock issues over K debate

- PIC's are rarely persuasive to me. I will vote aff on the perm 95% of the time if neg runs a PIC.

- CP shifts presumption. If you are running a CP, it needs to be competitive or I will not vote for it.

- T should be used to check aff, and not as a time suck. Really not a fan of clearly throw away arguments.

- IMPACT CALCULUS. Please. Weigh the aff world and the neg world, and do the work of comparing them for me.

- this is the first tournament I have heard this topic this year, but I do have a B.S. in Criminal Justice (grad. 2016) if that's information that would be helpful to you.

LD/ PF:

- Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include I will be going over my opponents case and if time permits I will address our case) After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don't in a speech, I do not like that.

- Framework : Establish a clear framework for the debate and come back to that FW frequently. If you don't provide any, I assume there to be a cost/benefit analysis.

- Extensions : don't just extend card authors and taglines or arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and compare your impacts. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team. Extend dropped arguments asap. Don't wait until your last speech to bring up subpoint E that hasn't been talked about for the whole debate.

- Evidence : prefer if you DO NOT paraphrase. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round.

- Narrative : Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story or how your case presents a cohesive story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents case. **Do NOT give me blippy/underdeveloped extensions/arguments. I don't know authors of evidence so go beyond that when talking about your evidence/arguments in round. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning. This is a communication event.

- this is the first tournament I have heard either topic.

ALL DEBATE:

- Not a fan of speed. I can handle most speed even though I don't like it. If it is too fast, I will say clear up to 2x. If you don't slow down, I will put my pen down and stop flowing. If something isn't on my flow, it's likely not going to be taken into consideration when I make my decision.

- Flow judge - So PLEASE provide clear verbal organization for me during your speech.

- I only pull up documents that are shared if there is evidence that I need to check. I flow the round based on what is said in the round. Don't depend on me reading and re-reading your case to understand it and make the arguments for you- you should present it in a way that I can understand it, and that persuades me.

- I will call for a card to check if (1) a piece of evidence is contested, (2) a piece of evidence is uncontested, but relevant to a key issue in the round, or (3) there seems to be a misunderstanding from both sides about what the card actually says (#3 is for feedback to the teams only, and will not effect my decision)

- In your rebuttals, tell me exactly where to vote. I'm a fan of "Judge, pull [the internal link/ framework/ subpoint B] through and put a star by it. You're voting for aff/ neg here because XYZ".

I am George Torto, an international Missouri State University Communication, Media, Journalism and Film Department graduate student. As a former debater back in both middle and high schools in Ghana, I would say I am quite conversant with the field. Prior to this season however, my experience with anything debate has been outside of the United States.

One cardinal thing I look out for in debate is respect and civility. These is the bedrock of debate. I expect debaters to treat each other with courtesy regardless of the differing opinions they may hold at that material moment. Assuming they are, I will vote affirmative if the unique benefits of the affirmative plan (beyond what a CP could solve) outweigh the unique disadvantages of adopting that plan. Of course, if the negative wins that the plan doesn't meet the best (or reasonable) interpretation of the topic, or a kritik shifts the debate focus, then the ballot will reflect that instead.

Regarding topicality, I start with definitions/interpretation and then move on to plan text and solvency evidence. Negative needs to clearly win the violation, but not necessarily unique abuse. Interpretation is based both on clarity of the line drawn and what it would do for both sides over a full season of debate.

Regarding kritiks, you need to clearly prove the affirmative is critically (not tangentally) dependent on the link that you critique. I'm open to the kritik framework changing the topic of the debate so long as you are clear about the alternative framework (including win conditions for both sides), starting in the constructives.

My flow sheet isn't as detailed as someone who has been doing this for a decade, and I do not recommend going top speed. If you are speaking too quickly or have clarity problems, you should be able to notice my nonverbals and correct it.

N/A