Hello, I’m Geanell Adams! I'm a college professor with a varied life experience including military service. I have educational backgrounds in political science, business, accounting, government, economic and workforce development, career technical education, and higher education. My work experiences correlate to those educational attributes. A fun fact is that I am also a stenographer and can write machine shorthand up to 260 wpm. This paradigm applies to all debates.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Keep me in the loop on file sharing (geanelladams@aol.com) and make your subject lines specific. I will only flow what I comprehend in round, but I will go through the files if I was thrown off track or need to double-check something.

I am usually okay with some speed, but make sure you articulate and are coherent. If you want to speed up as the round goes on, we can try it out. I will be more forgiving when it comes to clarity and will say clear as often as it takes. When signposting, let me know which arguments are especially important and weigh it when you get there. Fewer, more-developed arguments are preferred.

I am more than willing to listen to any arguments or approaches to your side of the resolution; however, assume that I am not familiar with the literature or your arguments. You need to be intentional about what you say and how you tie it together. So, I will not piece together what went unsaid, and I will not vote for you if your arguments are unclear.

I am generally substance over procedure, truth over tech, but that is not a hard and fast rule. I am willing to vote for anything that is well-explained.

I tend not to give verbal or non-verbal cues. I tend to be stoic and don't show or exhibit expression. This is intended to keep the presenter from being distracted by me as the judge. So don't take this an an indication that I agree or disagree with you.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Here are some of the ways you can lose the round immediately:

- Being deceitful by clipping cards, falsifying evidence or any number of shady things

- Being rude or disrespectful to me or anyone else

- Being racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. in any way shape or form

I try not to intervene but will do so if I am invited to, like being asked to read evidence or if I feel that bad behavior is taking place.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Feel free to let me know if you have any questions or concerns before round!

We are all here to learn and support each other's education. Be kind. Interruptions and cutting off fellow competitors is severely frowned upon.

As the parent of 3 speech and debaters, I have judged for a total of 12 years. In deciding who wins a round I value communication and logic. A conversational speed of speech allows judges to understand your words and to process your ideas and your logic. Avoid jargon (both speech & debate jargon AND jargon that relates to the topic) and

Don't make your judge(s) work. Your logic should be front and center and clear; judges shouldn't have to look for it. I'm looking for a "red thread of logic". The other side of the debate will attempt to cut your thread of logic and you will attempt to knot those ends to reconnect your thread. Sometimes speech and debaters cut their own thread (not enunciating, speaking too quickly, swallowing taglines, using jargon and acronyms). Debaters, your responsibility is to present ideas and supporting evidence and to help me understand your case. It is not a judge's responsibility to "figure out" your case and logic (or lack thereof).

Off-time Road Maps: In Policy, yes, please provide one. In all other forms of debate, please do NOT. Quality debaters typically tend to work it seamlessly into their speeches.

Timing: Please time yourself and the others, which frees me to focus my energies on judging the debate.

Prep Time: Please request to use prep time. Time yourself and let me know either how much time you used or how much time you have remaining. I'll confirm that. This allows you to use prep time without someone interrupting you to tell you how much time you've used.

Policy Debaters: While I have judged policy and am a competent judge; however, I am not a confident policy judge. Competent, yes; confident, no. When using policy jargon, I find it helpful to be reminded to what it refers. I do NOT consult evidence you provide via email or some such. I judge solely on the evidence you state in speeches and then only to the extent I comprehend your words and process your ideas. After all, I can't judge based on what I do not understand.)

I am open to any argument, as long as it makes sense and is backed up with evidence. The tagline must be what the card actually says.

In rounds, my main pet peeve is unclear tag lines. Be sure that you clearly enunciate the tagline if you want me to take it into account.

For critiques and theoretical arguments, make sure you clearly explain both the argument and its implications.

I try to be open-minded and fair about any arguments presented.

Hi. I'm a former Mississippi debate competitor. Mainly did policy debate. Dabbled in PF. I'm not going to try to make large demands on what I think good arguments should look like. Just treat me like any other experienced debate judge. I'm familiar and receptive to most arguments types and will vote on basically anything if you win on it (yes, anything!). I'm ok with some speed, but don't spread or go way too fast. I will flow the round and vote on the arguments that have been made in round and not on the arguments I think should have been made. Please be sure to ask me any questions about any of my preferences if you have them. If there is any evidence sharing (email chain, speechdrop, etc), add me to it. My email is jonmejoydhar@gmail.com.

That being said, I do have three things I would really like to see in round

1. Don't stall with your answers to questions in Cross-Ex or Crossfire

Cross is the most interesting part of the round, and it's really sad when someone takes a really simple question as an excuse to repeat their entire case all over again. It's even worse when your opponents have to resort to repeatedly interrupting you to get another question in. Don't be that person. Try to give concise answers to questions when possible. Obviously some questions will require a longer and more in-depth answer. I trust you to have good judgement on the difference between a detailed explanation and yapping.

Also if your opponent is starting to yap, don't worry about coming off as rude if you interrupt them. I trust you to have good judgement between yapping and them just answering the question.

2. When possible, I like to see warrants for claims in your evidence

This is mainly for PF and maybe LD I think, but I've seen it occasionally in policy. In general, I'm more likely to trust evidence and arguments where the warrants are explained (if its not in the card, then at least somewhere else in the round) than I am for arguments that are a straight one liner. For example, if one side were to read a one line card that says "A 10% downturn in the economy kills 10 million due to poverty" and the other reads "An increase in the economy increases the likelihood of war which kills 10 million," I would prefer both sides in the next speech to explain why their argument is true rather than just repeat the impact claim again at each other. (Yes, I have seen that happen before).

3. Ask questions in the RFD

Unless you request otherwise, I will give an RFD (assuming that the tourney time allows for it). I'm not omniscient. I might not grasp all the nuance of evidence in the round. But I'll try my best to give good reasoning for my decision, so don't get mad if you lose. Take the opportunity to see what you can improve on. You might get a lot more insight into what you might not be doing well, or you might get a better explanation of what I'm saying if you do.

I was a high school policy debater, college IPDA debater, and now lawyer. That being said, I can tolerate most styles of debate, but ask that in the age of Covid and online tournaments, you be sure to be as clear as possible when speaking. Even though you normally may be able to go faster, if you can't be as clear, it may benefit you to slow down a bit.

I like big picture, impact calc, why we win analysis. If you run a K but can't evaluate it within the round, I'm not going to evaluate it for you.

I've been an educator for the past forty years. The majority of that time has been spent teaching English, drama, and forensics. I have a background in the performance arts with a degree in speech and drama from Missouri State back when it was called Southwest Missouri State University. I am familiar with the mechanics of flowing but have limited practical experience. I do have the benefit of working with a very well-trained group of veteran debaters who've been assisting me as I navigate these new responsibilities. My philosophy when it comes to judging debate is to listen closely, script frantically, and remain objective in my analysis. I am becoming comfortable and confidence in my decisions weighing impact and evidence validity with greater ease.

Decorum is of utmost importance - both verbal and nonverbal.

This should be a civil discourse between competitors.

Do NOT attack your opponent personally - attack the resolution and the claims.

Debate is a speaking activity, so, no, I do not want you to share/email/drop, etc. your case to me. I will judge what you say, not what's written in your case.

Speaking style is also critical. Do not spread or even talk fast - if I can't understand or if I struggle to keep up with what you're saying two things happen: (1) I will miss key information and (2) I will get frustrated and not be able to judge you. If I miss an argument because you are speaking too fast and are not clear, then you didn't make it.

Do not be monotone in your delivery and look up during speeches. KNOW YOUR CASE!!!

You should not have so much information that it requires you to speak faster than normal conversation pace/speed. Be efficient with your words.

I want to know how to judge the round, so supply and use your MW or V/VC or Framework!

I want to see clear links between your claims and your WM, V/VC, Framework.

I want clear CWI's.

You need to clearly and effectively refute all of your opponent's claims. Debate requires CLASH - if there is no clash, then you have not debated. It is the responsibility of each debater to add to and create clash throughout the round.

I flow the round, so I am well aware of what has/has not been dropped or deconstructed - don't claim your opponent has dropped points when they haven't!!! This can cost you the ballot!

Debate the resolution you have been given and nothing else!

Do not have a side debate about who has the best evidence - present the evidence and I'll decide as the judge, I don't need you to try and persuade me - or any other issues not related to the given resolution.

I don't need a road map - you should be clear enough in your round that I can clearly follow you.

Have fun!!! The world will not come to an end if you do not win this round! Always be looking for what you can learn from each round you debate.

Win. Lose. Learn!

On a lighter note, my favorite K-pop bands are The Rose, EXO, BTS, Seventeen, NCT 127 & NCT Dream -- if you work K-pop lyrics into your case/refutation, you won't receive any extra points, but it'll make me smile ????!

Don't spread.

I am an old school LD debater with an emphasis on persuasion. I believe in debate as a persuasive competition. That means I need to be able to understand you. I do not like speed or reading at non-human levels. The quality of arguments goes a lot farther with me than the quantity of arguments.

NCFL

Original Oratory

I am a traditional debate judge. The last time I did OO was in middle school. The speech I like the most (that was spoken best) wins! Your topic doesn't interest me so much, but that's not to say that a better topic won't be helpful as a vehicle for a more interesting speech. The way it's written is important of course!

Extemp

Thoughtful/unique analysis is key. I know with these topics you've seen 1,000,000+ times it's not always easy to say something that hasn't been said before, but try your best. I do not care that much about sources, and I think overloading is a little annoying.

Declamation

Declamation... declamation... yes

I coach IPDA debate (an extemporaneous form of debate) at the college level and actively assist with LD and PF at the high school level. I'm also a non-practicing lawyer who works in legal/regulatory compliance, for what that's worth.

In terms of experience, a good summary would be: I'm capable of handling most technical, "progressive" and/or esoteric aspects of debate, but I really don't think I should have to. It's almost always possible to make even the most novel arguments in a way that is understandable and logically accessible to a reasonably educated non-specialist. And while I probably can understand your terminology or theory, I tend to reward debaters who don't need it.

A few specific things to keep in mind with me:

I vote based on complete arguments. That means claim, warrant, impact, and reason for decision. I probably know what you're trying to say, but can't ethically fill in the gaps for you. So please --if that card really is the killer you think it is-- walk me through why it wins the round for you.

I'm not crazy about speed. I won't say it can never add value. But 80-90% of the time that it's deployed in high school, its principal function is to obscure lazy reasoning or the lack of solid evidence, as opposed to fitting in more useful info. Again, debate is more than tag lines, and I'm not going to pretend that I can understand the particulars of a piece of evidence read at 300 wpm. So if you use speed like that, you assume the risk that I'll miss an essential part of your logical syllogism

On a related note, I'm very unlikely to read your case or cards. If you want to create a competition where people pass papers back and forth to make arguments, that might be an interesting game to play. But the essence of this competition --i.e., debating-- is orally delivering an argument to listeners. There's no reason to have oral delivery unless part of the game is encapsulating information in a way that a listener can process and evaluate. So I will generally decline to read cases or cards unless there is a specific, credible allegation of dishonesty.

I have no objection to theory or kritiks per se, but you're not entitled to tabula rasa judging on these kinds of arguments. That is, if your argument is truly a priori --i.e., it takes precedence over the resolution itself-- then you're no longer operating within the protective shell of imaginary judge fiat, where I can comfortably ignore what I know. Instead, you're asking me to take some stand relating to morality, ethics, fairness, etc., because of some ostensible impact on the real world. I can't ethically take "real world" actions while deliberately ignoring my own relevant knowledge. So full disclosure: if you take the debate outside the resolution, you assume the risk that I'll vote against you based on things that were not said in the round.

Be respectful. I know some tension is inherent in the activity, so I'll give a certain measure of leeway. But I'll happily give you the loss for gratuitous rudeness, mockery, etc.

Hi! My name is Ryder and I am currently a Senior at St. Andrews Episcopal School in Ridgeland Mississippi. I have been involved in Speech and Debate since 7th Grade. I have primarily participated in PF and LD but I have also done Congress, Big Questions, Extemp, Impromptu, Prose, OO, and Pro Con Challenge.

I love this activity and personally, it has done so much for me which is why I also love to judge it! But enough about me let's get into the specifics:

Jude Style: I am a flow judge. I also believe in Tech>Truth (Unless you are just blatantly lying or misrepresenting your card).

General Debate:

1) I have very little experience with Policy and LD, but I am by no means a lay judge. With that being said do not try and put lay judge tricks past me. If you try and say your opponent clean dropped and arg and they clearly didn't that will not bode well with you. Speaking of drops make sure you clean extend evidence through all speeches. If you drop your arg in a rebuttal and then don't bring it up again then I will not flow that to you (Applies to evidence as well). So please make sure you clean extend your arguments.

2) I cannot stress this enough but please ARTICULATE when you speak. I personally do not like speed in debate events however I can still understand it. Just please make sure that you say your words with clarity and I can undoubtedly understand the words that come out of your mouths. (If I do not understand or miss something because you are not articulating your words then I will not flow it through).

3) Make sure that our arguments make sense. This might sound self-explanatory but please make sure you have a clear link chain throughout your case. It makes the debate 1000x times better.

4) As far as timing goes please do not go over the 5-second grace. I know for PF at least 4 minutes is not enough time (trust me I go over sometimes too) but please do not go over the grace. I will just stop paying attention to anything after that. It is extremely unfair to your opponents.

5) Do not be racist, homophobic, sexist, or transphobic. You will instantly lose.

6) In PF and LD I do not like Theory or K's. Most kritiks are based on some very complex and abstract concepts that require a great deal of explanation. The longest speech in PF is four minutes long. If you can explain such complex concepts in that time frame at a comprehensible speaking rate, then I do admire you. However, the vast majority of debaters don't even come close to accomplishing that task. So please, do not run them.

Hi Everyone!

Background

I have experience in VLD (both local and circuit). I'm currently a first year at Vandy studying Medicine, Health, and Society (possibly prelaw or premed).

How to Win My Ballot

- I love a good a framework debate. If you're engaging framework and making extensions throughout the round to prove why your framework is important, I am much more likely to vote for you.

- If you say anything ridiculously discriminatory in round, that will warrant in automatic L. I will not tolerate it. Period.

- I can flow spreading, but I don't like it.

- I'm not voting for an argument just because it's in your case. That would require me to engage in too much critical thinking. The more work you do to convince me that your argument has an impact (magnitude, scope, time frame), the easier my job becomes.

- Please outline clear voters and signpost.

Make sure I can understand you; don't speak too fast!
Above all, be respectful to each other!

Hello, I’m Khalil Jackson! In high school, I mainly competed in Congressional Debate but have some experience in all debate events. This paradigm applies to all debates.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Keep me in the loop on file sharing (kjspeechanddebate@gmail.com), and make your subject lines specific. I will only flow what I comprehend in round, but I will go through the files if I was thrown off track or need to double-check something.

I am not not too good with speed, especially being so far removed from debate. So, try to maintain a relatively normal speaking pace, if possible. If you want to speed up, we can try it out. I will be forgiving when it comes to clarity and will notify you of it as often as it takes. When signposting, let me know which arguments are especially important and weigh it when you get there. Fewer, more-developed arguments are preferred.

I am more than willing to listen to any arguments or approaches to your side of the resolution. However, assume that I am not familiar with the literature or your arguments. You need to be intentional about what you say and how you tie it together. So, I will not piece together what went unsaid, and I will not vote for you if your arguments are unclear.

I am generally substance over procedure, truth over tech, but that is not a hard and fast rule. I am willing to vote for anything that is well-explained.

I have a habit of giving non-verbal cues, but do not mistake them as an indication that I agree with you. They only indicate that I understand the point you are trying to make, not necessarily that I buy what you are saying.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Here are some of the ways you can lose the round immediately:

- Being deceitful by clipping cards, falsifying evidence or any number of shady things

- Being rude or disrespectful to me or anyone else

- Being racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. in any way shape or form

I try not to intervene but will do so if I am invited to, like being asked to read evidence or if I feel that bad behavior is taking place.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Feel free to let me know if you have any questions or concerns before round!

As a judge, I begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. That means I am ok with generally fast speeches, along with counter-plans, disadvantages, and kritiks. When it comes to speaking fast, just me a roadmap before every speech about which arguments you are addressing. When addressing kritiks, I don't care what types of kritiks you use. I just will evaluate based on which team has argued what makes the kritik revelant and why does the kritik give ground to vote in the aff or neg. I prefer if debaters respond to arguments in the order they were presented. Don't overcomplicate points or key arguments. To keep overcomplication to a minimum, clear signposting is greatly appreciated. Regarding the substance of your argument, the most important is the warrants/evidence. The heavy impacts cannot occur if you can clearly argue what triggers them.

On T: I am pretty lenient when it comes to whether a plan/counterplan is topical or not. My standard for determining this is whether or not the plan fits in what I conceive as the "spirit of the resolution." Something may not be strictly topical as per the verbiage of the resolution, but is still topical as it fits the resolution's intended spirit as written. The only times I will flatly reject a plan on topicality is (1) if it is too large in scope, as to encompass the resolution rather than the other way around, or (2) it is so disconnected from the topic that it may as well be a non-sequitur. As an additional note, please don't waste time making a bunch of topicality arguments. It is often time-consuming.

-K's are most commonly a cheap trick, in my view--I know that they're used topic to topic and round to round with little change, as a means to minimize exhaustive prep and real engagement with the topic. The only exception I'll give is to specific instances of abolition/discourse K's, in which you argue (in good faith, I'll be able to tell) that the verbiage or framing of the resolution overly limits available/acceptable discourse. Regardless, don't anticipate a vote in a K's favor. You signed up for this tournament, you know what the topic is: debate it.

CP- just be topical if a counterplan isnt topical. I'm not going to rely on the CP for a vote.

Graduated St. Andrew's, MS. Attends Colby College. Did policy, public forum, informative, extemp and congress in high school.

I'm very tabula rasa and expect the debaters to do the work for me rather than having me trying to piece everything together. Ideally, I'm looking for you to cross the t's & dot the i's rather than having me do it for you – claim, warrant, impact- contextualization, weighing, impact analysis

I am fine with speed.

Policy/CX/LD :

Run whatever you want: DA's, CP's, K's, T, Theory

I have no pre determined opinion about certain args such as condo good/bad

Don't worry about coming across as rude in cross

PF:

New args in FF will not be evaluated

Try not to speak over each other in GCX

Updated February 2023

Caveat: This is my perception of what I think I do. Those who have had me in the back of the room may have different views.

The TL;DR version (applies to all forms of debate).

1. The resolution is pretty important. Advocate for or against it and you get a lot of leeway on method. Ignore it at your peril.

2. Default policymaker/CBA unless the resolution screams otherwise or you give me a well-reasoned argument for another approach.

3. “Roles of the ballot” or frameworks that are not reasonably accessible (doesn't have to be 50-50, but reasonable) to both sides in the debate run the risk of being summarily thrown out.

4. Share me to the speech doc (maierd@gosaints.org) but I’m only flowing what you intelligibly say in the debate. If I didn’t flow it, you didn’t say it.

5. Fairness and reciprocity are a good starting point for evaluating theory/topicality, etc. Agnostic on tech v. truth debate. These are defaults and can be overcome.

6. Rudeness, rules-lawyering, clipping, falsifying evidence and other forms of chicanery all make me unhappy. Making me unhappy reduces your speaker points. If I’m unhappy enough, you might be catching an L.

The longer version (for all forms of debate)

The Resolution: Full disclosure – I have been a delegate to the NFHS Debate Topic Selection Meeting since 2011 (all years for Mississippi except 2022 when I voted on behalf of NCFL) and was on the Wording Committee from 2018-2020, the last of those years as chair. There’s a lot of work that goes into crafting resolutions and since you’re coming here by choice, it should be respected. Advocate for or against the resolution and I’ll give you a pretty wide degree of latitude on method. If you’re just going to ignore the resolution, the bar is pretty low for your opponent to clear to get the W (though I have seen teams bungle this).

File Sharing and Speed – Yes please, but understand I’m only flowing that which comes out of your mouth that I can understand – I don’t flow as fast in my mid-50s as I did even in my 40s. I only go to the speech doc if a) I lost concentration during the speech through no fault of your own, b) I need to read evidence because there is a dispute about what the evidence says, or c) I want to steal the evidence for a future round. If you bust out ten blips in fifteen seconds, half of them aren’t making the flow. Getting it on my flow is your job and I have no problem saying “you didn’t say that in a way that was flowable”.

Arguments: Arguments grounded in history, political science, and economics are the ones I understand the best – that can cut both ways. So while I understand K’s like Cap, CRT, and Intersectionality, I have a harder time with those that are based on some Continental European whose name ends with four vowels in a row who says that not adopting their method risks all value to life. Your job is to put me in a position to be able to make the other team understand why they lost, even if they disagree with the decision. If you don’t do the work, I’m not doing it for you. Regarding “framework” or “role of the ballot” arguments – if what you’re advocating isn’t at least reasonably accessible to both teams, I reserve the right to ignore it.

Deciding Rounds – I try to decide the round in the least interventionist way possible – I’ll leave it to others to hash out whether I succeed at that. I’m willing to work slightly harder to adjudicate the round than you do to advocate in the round (basically, if neither debater does the work and the round’s a mess, I’m going to look for the first thing I can embrace to get out of the round). If you ask me to read evidence, especially your evidence, you’ve given me a tacit invitation to intervene.

Point Scale – Because I judge on a few different circuits that each have different scales, saying X equals a 28.5 isn’t helpful. I use the scale I’m asked to use to the best of my ability.

Things that will cost you speaker points/the round:

1. Rudeness – Definitely will hurt your speaks. If it’s bad enough, I’ll look for a reason to vote you down or just decide I like to make rude people mad and give you the L just so I can see you get hacked off.

2. Gratuitous profanity – Saying “damn” or “hell” or “the plan will piss off X” in a frantic 1AR is no biggie. Six f-bombs in a forty second span is a different story.

3. Racist/sexist/homophobic language or behavior – If I’m sure about what I saw or heard and it’s bad enough, I’ll act on it unilaterally.

4. Falsifying evidence/clipping cards/deliberate misrepresentation of evidence – Again, if I’m sure about this and that it’s deliberate, I’ll act on my own.

5. Rules-lawyering – Debate has very few rules, so unless it’s written down somewhere, rules-lawyering is likely to only make me mad. An impacted theory objection might be a different story.

Lincoln-Douglas Observations

1. Way too much time on framework debates without applying the framework to the resolution question. I’m not doing this work for you.

2. The event is generally in an identity crisis, with some adhering to the Value Premise/Criterion model and others treating it like 1 on 1 policy, some with really shallow arguments. I’m fine with either, but starting the NC with five off and then collapsing to one in the NR is going to make me give 2AR a lot of leeway (maybe even new argument leeway) against extrapolations not specifically in the NC.

3. Too many NR’s and 2AR’s are focused on not losing and not on winning. Plant your flag somewhere, tell me why you’re winning those arguments and why they’re the key to the round.

Public Forum Specific Observations

1. Why we ever thought paraphrasing was a good idea is absolutely beyond me. In a debate that isn’t a mismatch, I’m generally going to prefer those who read actual evidence over those who say “my 100 page report says X” and then challenge the other team to prove them wrong in less than a handful of minutes of prep time. Make of that what you will.

2. I’ve never seen a Grand Crossfire that actually advanced a debate.

3. Another frustration I have with PF is that issues are rarely discussed to the depth needed to resolve them fully. This is more due to the structure of the round than debaters themselves. To that end, if you have some really wonky argument, it’s on you to develop your argument to where it’s a viable reason to vote. I will lose no sleep over saying to you “You lost because you didn’t do enough to make me understand your argument.”

4. Right now, PF doesn’t seem sure of what it wants to be – some of this is due to the variety of resolutions, but also what seems like the migration of ex-debaters and coaches into the judging pool at the expense of lay judges, which was supposed to be the idea behind PF to begin with.

5. As with LD, too many Final Focuses are focused on not losing instead of articulating a rationale for why a team is winning the debate.

Debaters - if you spread, I won't be able to hear your argument.

I appreciate pleasantries and reciprocate (Good morning, thank you, have a great day...).

Please be patient with me and everyone in the room. I will do the same.

Take a few slow, deep breaths before you present. I will do the same.

I am not the most experienced judge (yet), but I take the job seriously and will do my best to offer valuable feedback.

Update for TOC Digital 3: My background is in lay/traditional policy and it's been about a year since I've thought a lot about circuit debate/flowed spreading. I'll do my best to be tabula rasa, but the less I understand, the more likely I'll make a mistake. If y'all would help me out by slowing down (especially for arguments that aren't in the doc) and taking more time to explain complex arguments and how they function in the round, I'd really appreciate it :D

Hello, I'm Jason. I competed for Madison Central in Mississippi (mostly PF, Policy, and speech; dabbled in World Schools, Congress, and LD). I do BP and APDA debate at Penn now.

My background is mostly in lay/traditional debate, but I did some national circuit PF and policy and think about debate in a more technical way. Feel free to ask any questions before the round!

First and foremost, do what you do, and I'll do my best to follow and give constructive feedback. We are all here to learn, so above all else, please respect your opponents, teammates, and judges. At the end of the day, it's a lot more important to be a good person than a great speaker/debater.

General:

1- Tell me what argument(s) you’re winning, why you’re winning them, and why winning those arguments means you win the debate. The same goes for dropped arguments. Being technically proficient is important, but smart overviews, organization, and judge instruction can shape how I view technical issues on the flow.

2- Be smart and adaptable. Cases that are strategically written, clever logical analysis to respond to unpredictable/unrealistic arguments, and comparative weighing of arguments beyond probability/magnitude/timeframe are all great.

3- Here’s a video that shows the speed I am comfortable with without a doc. Please start off slow and work your way up to speed.

4- Highly warranted evidence is great. If there's evidence-sharing, I won't read evidence to make my decision unless you tell me to or I think there's something fishy going on. I might read it for fun though.

5- Try to make the round accessible and educational for everyone involved. Complex or unorthodox arguments are fine, but make them in a way that your opponents can easily understand and don't be mean or shifty in cross if you're asked to explain them. But also, if you read an argument that you wouldn't usually read just to confuse your seemingly-less experienced opponents, I'll be very sad.

Public Forum:

1- PF speeches are super short. Your speaks will be amazing if the last two speeches focus on winning and implicating a few arguments, rather than going for everything.

2- 2nd rebuttal needs to respond to 1st rebuttal.

3- An argument must have been in summary for it to be in final focus.

Lincoln-Douglas:

1- If the framework debate is clearly irrelevant (i.e. both debaters are staking the round on consequences) just concede to your opponent's framework and win under it.

2- If the values are different, I'll probably view the value and criterion as a single framework rather than two separate layers of the debate.

Policy:

1- I'm definitely more familiar with policy arguments than kritikal arguments. Seriously go for anything though (provided it isn't hateful), but the further something strays from what I'm familiar with, the more explanation I'll need to understand.

2- Pls slow down on taglines, analytics, and stuff you really want me to flow.

4- Honestly not super familiar with the K outside of Cap and Security. I like to learn though, so if that's your jam, just explain it well (especially how the K interacts with the aff) and I'll be happy to listen.

5- Same goes for K affs. Just be very clear on what your aff does and do impact calc vs framework. For what it's worth, I went for clash/skills impacts in 2NRs on framework, but am good for whatever.

6- I won't judge kick a counterplan in the 2NR unless I'm told to, and it wouldn't take much from the 2AR to convince me not to.

7- Probably not great for super techy competition/theory debates.

8- I'm not super comfortable adjudicating arguments about something that happened out-of-round.

9- The first lines of the 2NR and 2AR should be the words I put at the top of my RFD.

Other Events:

1- Be organized, be polished, and make me think.

2- Have fun!

I did Public Forum for three years and competed nationally.

Speaking:

I care about clarity above speed or amount of evidence. If I can't understand you or your arguments, I won't be able to consider them and neither will your opponents who will receive the benefit of the doubt if they are unable to rebut. Speak clearly and understand the risks in "spreading."

Arguments:

Claim, Warrant, Impact. Make sure to evaluate impacts on both sides of the debate. A comparative debate with clash between arguments makes it easy for me to determine who won the round.

Etiquette:

Please don't be rude (i.e. snarkiness, frequent interruption, and condescension), particularly in cross. The new digital platform makes it even more difficult to understand debaters talking over each other. Repeated rudeness, despite quality of speeches, will result in lower speaker points.