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.

Hey, I'm Catey Rose!

- I am pretty trad and I really do not like spreading, or theory. Plans are fine, just make it clear. Disads that lead to extinction should have a strong link chain!

- Collapse!! Give Vorters!! Make sure you weigh impacts and answer framework!! :)

- I don't care if you stand, sit, or whatever in round. I am good with most speeds, I have a background in LD, BQ, and congress but I do prefer slower talking.

- I believe debate is a training field-- it has a competitive nature as a game, but should remain ethical and truthful as an educational activity.

- You guys are gonna do great!

For Pratt:

1) Make sure you read card names! If you don't I have no proof that anything you are saying is factual. Please read your sources, or at least put them in your cases!\

2) I will disclose if I can, but if I can't I will put some more in depth feedback in private comments in tabroom & RFD. All criticism is constructive, and some of the best stuff I've learned came from judge feedback! It's to make y'all better, NOT make you feel bad.

3) I'll be more than happy to answer any questions after the round is over.

SOOOOOOO TRAD.

wells.finch1020@gmail.com

Experience- Debating LD, PF, and CX for five years with a little bit of congress and IEs sprinkled in (at Mountain Brook)

I don't judge often but I know what I'm doing

Ask me questions after the round bc you likely won't see me again

Progressive stuff-idc just know what you're doing

Tech>truth (you still need decent warrants)

DONT READ A PARAPHRASED CASE

give an off time road map, like neg aff, not I'm going to start on my opponents C1 and refute this and that and then go to their C2 and do that and this. That's too long, I'll give low speaks for that

Sign post-if I don't know where you are, I can't flow what your saying

I'll time you but I'm not going to cut you off. I stop flowing after about ten seconds, but you can talk for as long as you feel like, it'll just be a waste of our time.

be nice

Cross- If it isn't brought up later in round I won't evaluate it (be nice)

Read a case with cut cards

Speed is fine but I flow the speech so if I can’t understand you I’ll just stop flowing

Give me weighing

Clash is super important

Feel free to text me if you have questions after round or if you think that I should know something before the round.

(205)-517-3521

Ask me anything beforehand if you are confused or have any other questions

If you say anything sexist, homophobic, racist, transphobic, etc I'll drop you with a 0

tldr standard flow judge

-INFO-

she/her - vestavia ’26 - sendyouranalytics@gmail.com

1 year pf + 1 year ld

i think like michael fain for theory/silly args and laurel pack for everything else. (alabama judge pool goats. proud to be 4-0 in front of both!)

my favorite free resources for learning circuit debate

-NOVICE-

arg preferences: dogmatism is an increasing problem in this activity, and i will certainly vote off the flow. however, some arguments are just better than others, like extinction o/w (this is bold and underlined for a reason.)

the best way to prevent "judge screws" is to do judge instruction.

pf stuff: defense is not sticky. being a pf debater does not exempt you from the standards for ev ethics. i did pf so don't assume that you can pull a fast one on me.

cx: it's binding. use cx answers in arguments (during actual speeches). i love aggressiveness but not open disrespect.

speaks: the only way to boost these is to make good arguments. the easiest way to tank these is to be annoying.

<25 - you were violent (slurs, excessive and/or intentional misgendering, etc.) and i will intervene to give you the L 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 - i was feeling super generous

disclosure: (OF MY DECISION:) yes. (OF YOUR ARGUMENTS:) auto 25 speaks, don't make me evaluate disclosure theory in novice.

postrounding: sure, go for it.

ev ethics: stop being lazy and actually cut your cards and cite them correctly. i believe in the W30/L0 stake system and lean towards over-punishing for minor infractions. if i notice it on my own, i'll tank speaks (25-26.9 range) but not intervene on the decision.

-MORE THOUGHTS-

progressive args: i don't think that i have the jurisdiction to draw an arbitrary line of what is and is not "too progressive." i'll evaluate them, but you won't be happy with your speaks if you don't know what you're talking about (and if you're a novice, i assure you that you probably don't).

speed: i'm an average flower. unlike my email might suggest, i don't flow off the doc. be clear, slow down on tags/analytics, and NUMBER STUFF.

pref-like rankings:

1 - policy

1.5 - theory

2 - topic specific T, theory trix

4 - T-subsets, cap, kant

strike - k, dense phil, SOFT LEFT (this doesn't even deserve any comments on it)

policy: not much to say here, anything goes (yes generic process cps, yes ptx da, yes edgy impact turns). i will be impressed with case turns da analysis on multiple levels (i.e. link level, internal link level, impact level). zero risk is real but rare. default no judge kick but lean yes judge kick if warranted in the 2nr.

cp theory: the ld structure favors the aff in terms of speech times, but the neg is probably right on a truth level. unlimited condo is probably good (contra condo is the only place i lean aff), and competitive counterplans are almost definitely good. the hail mary 2ar should answer all weighing and pick true args.

theory: ns > ira, default and lean moderately dtd, default and lean slightly ci, default no rvi and lean slightly yes rvi. no theory is too frivolous to reject on face, but substance crowdout o/w at a certain point. it is your job to figure out and articulate where that line is.

minimum 29.8 speaks for a good rvi 2ar, but an rvi 2nr would be even more devious ;))

T: i lean aff on T in most instances, and a topic specific T arg is infinitely more winnable than T-subsets. i first see if both interpretations are semantically eligible, and i look to debatability second. it is up to you to figure out and articulate what makes something semantically eligible (very similar to theory).

hidden args: i'm fine with these anywhere except hidden in cards. extempted is fine, but slow down a bit, be super clear, and make eye contact to maximize my chances of getting down all the warrants. STOP FLOWING OFF THE DOC!! cw > tt, implicate your args. answer spikes that take out your spikes shell/k.

k: i've never gone for the k, but i really respect good k debaters and read lit at 2am for fun. YOU SHOULD KNOW YOUR TOP. i will be unhappy if i know more about your setcol kritik after only reading tuck & yang. i like specific links to the topic that don't solely rely on winning fwk, and k affs should defend something.

phil: i hate phil tricks and affs/ncs that are constructed to hide them. white dude phil is easily my least favorite type of debate, but i'll do my best for real arguments while hoping that someone uplayers to theory. no morally abhorrent args (fbk23 quarters iykyk).

Hi guys! My name is Hope, and I am a senior at Vestavia Hills High School. I am a third year varsity in debate. I have a lot of experience in Big Questions, Congress, Lincoln Douglas, and Public Forum, and I have competed in World Schools as well. Just a few preferences:

Win on the flow. tech > truth

Keep track of your own time.

I don't mind fast speaking or spreading, but make sure you emphasize major taglines, points, statistics, and author names. If I don't hear the tagline, the argument/card will not flow in the round. If you are going to spread, send your doc.

Make sure to signpost and give an off-time road-map.

I do not flow cross-ex, so if you want something to be incorporated into the ballot from cross, make sure to bring it up in another speech.

I like framework debate, theory debate, and substance debate.

I am not as familiar with Ks and tricks, but I do know what they are. Speak slowly and really explain during more progressive arguments so I know how to evaluate them.

Don't forget to weigh.

My email is hopeajohnson07@gmail.com for evidence and case chains.

Don't be rude and have fun! Good luck!

tech>truth

Defense is sticky.

I don't flow crossfire.

email for chains: amahatsente@gmail.com

-please do not spam

Betty Gun

PF

This is meant to be a learning opportunity. Try to take up all of your time and-most importantly- have fun.

LD

This is meant to be a learning opportunity. Try to take up all of your time and-most importantly- have fun.

I am fine with progressive debate, just Warrant Everything. The more progressive you make the round, the more you need to explain it to me. I prefer detailed analysis over blippy extensions and warranting any day of the week. No frivolous theory and no abusive roles of the ballot.

I am a Senior at Vestavia Hills High School in my fourth year of debate.

Tech > Truth (helps to have quality author credentials for evidence weighing)

my debate prefs:

1. policy,th
2. msv, trix
3. phil, Ks
4. anything else not on this list

Framework- I am familiar with Util, Structural Violence, and Kant in that order. If the framing debate is a wash I will default to cost benefit analysis.

Do NOT be X-phobic, racist, sexist, etc.

If there is an email chain, please add me, my email is 00thomaspatton00@gmail.com

I am fine with speed as long as you send the doc to me and your opponent. Speak clearly, otherwise it will be harder for me to flow your args and harder for me to vote you up.

Please be polite to your fellow debater.

Extend your args, signpost, and weigh in rebuttals.

Give an off time road map before each speech.

For Novice

Don't stress, this is your first LD tournament so just use this as a learning experience and remember, to have fun!

I'm an LD JV, so I typically know what's going on, PF, not so much but I'll try my best

• Please don't spread to the point of not being able to be understood
• Speak loud but like don't scream pls because my hearing is kind of trash so I might be like tilting my head toward you when you talk
• Impact weigh!! (If you're in LD)
• I'm gonna be real I don't really like progressive debate, but that really shouldn't be issue as y'all are novices
• Tech > Truth

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

I am currently in my sixth year debating at Mountain Brook High School

Top Level Stuff

-Add me to the email chain and email me with any questions after the round: jacksonrshort@gmail.com

-Debate is a game; win the game

-Debate needs to be a fun activity; if you make me laugh you'll get an extra speaker point

PF

-I am comfortable with speed, but don't spread, it's PF, if you want to spread do a different event

-I'm ok with pretty much all kinds of progressive argumentation, but if I don't understand it, I can't vote off of it, so make sure you explain it well

-I generally think theory is a good thing (especially paraphrasing), but it really bothers me when teams read it simply as a cop-out. Only read theory if your opponent is doing something that merits it. That said, if your opponent is reading theory just to try to win the round and not address an actual issue, then call it out; I am very open to voting on a friv theory arg. Also, if you're not comfortable with it, don't read it; there are plenty of other ways to win the round.

LD

-I'm comfortable with speed, but if you spread send a speech doc

-Please please please implicate the round through your value and criterion; if you don't, I don't know what to vote on

-Generally comfortable with progressive debate

-If you read tricks or super philosophical arguments, explain them well. If I don't understand it I won't vote on it.

Hello!

I’m a student at UAB studying economics, but in high school I was the vice president of debate and a varsity PF debater. The most important thing to me is clarity during the round. If you are speaking too fast and I can’t understand what you are saying, I will not be able to flow it and it may cost you the round. Also, make sure to be respectful to your opponents. I will not tolerate any racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. comments. It will cause you to automatically lose. I don’t flow cross so if your opponents bring up something you want to use, you must bring it up in a speech. Make sure to weigh the round and that you flow across your cards throughout the round. Please do not bring up new evidence in your last speech since that is unfair to your opponents.

Concerning speaker points- speak clearly and annunciate well. Don’t let your words run together when you are trying to talk fast. I also value when a person uses their whole time.

Good luck + I look forward to watching y’all debate!

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 am convinced is a path to the ballot.

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. "I'm not spreading so we don't need to share" misses the point. This activity is net better when you can look at your opponent's evidence, analyze it, and contest it. Calling for cards is not time effective. Just send the doc with the evidence you're going to read in that speech before the speech.

hey guys!! im elizabeth (she/her) and im a varsity debater at auburn. i think debate should be dictated by the debaters, not me, so i try and keep things pretty chill.

tech>truth, tabula rasa and all that stuff

some things i like and don't like:

• fill your speech time! i know it can be scary when you run out of things to say, but the more you say, the more reasons you are giving me to vote for you
• extend- bring up your best arguments in your last few speeches
• i loveeeee off time road maps.
• no spreading or prog in novice
• weigh so I know why to prefer your case over your opponent’s
• being homophobic, sexist, racist, etc. will lose you the round, debate should always be inclusive
• jokes are appreciated :)

dm me at @elizabeth_thurow or email me at elthurow4@gmail.com if you have any questions

(or just follow my insta for funsies)