This is my first time actually judging a debate. I did LD for 2 years in high school, so I am familiar with the general layout but am rusty at best. I was never good with spreading, so please speak at an understandable rate (if I can't understand what you're saying, I won't have anything written down from you). I'll say clear/slower/louder a few times, but, if I don't notice any change, I'll stop interjecting. Additionally, please frame/number/signpost/whatever to make it easier on me to vote for you. With that being said, it'd be great if you weigh the arguments yourself. Otherwise, I will decide on my own how to weigh different contentions against each other. Lastly, don't assume that I understand the in's and out's of your argument. I'd prefer that you take the time to explain your argument, claim, and etc.

If you have any other questions, ask before we start.

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.

Please be on time for check-in.

Email: Gracenicoleb@gmail.com

She/her

Background

• I did policy debate at Samford for 3 years
• 2x NDT qualifier
• Assistant coach of the SpeakFirst debate team

Top-level thoughts:

I prefer clear, slow speaking over fast, unintelligible speaking. With online debate, clarity is key. A lot of technology leaves failure points where I may miss something. I will be more likely to vote for the team that carefully explains their arguments over a team that provides more evidence but neglects warrants.

I will not vote for death good or warming good.

If I notice you are clearly clipping cards or are engaging in racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. remarks or behavior, I will vote you down. If you want to call out a team that you believe is clipping cards, debaters are innocent until proven guilty. Be prepared to have it recorded or have some other way for me to verify it.

Disclosure: Debaters should disclose. I am fine with disclosure arguments.

Judge kick: I will kick the cp for the neg if no one tells me not to.

Tech > Truth with limits. A dropped argument is assumed to be contingently true unless it is obviously unethical or when I go back and read your evidence, it does not say what you say it does. I will read most of the evidence in round but if you're answering a specific argument/link/internal link with a generic, I won't always accept that without contextualization. If you leave it up to me to resolve an argument, you get what you get.

More specific thoughts:

CP

I default to sufficiency framing. The Cp's viability as a winning argument is essentially a product of how much it resolves the aff's impacts and the magnitude of the NB. Also, if it is not 100% clear on the distinction between the cp and the plan, outline the differences for me. If the CP has no external net benefit-- it must solve better than the aff for some reason.

DA

Be clear on the link level- this means I don't want you to just read cards on why you don't link-- I want an explanation. I will vote for a DA if I think there is a small risk of a link and a significant probability of an impact. I will not vote for a DA if I feel like there is not a significant probability of an impact, even if there is a small risk of a link. There are downsides to every policy-- it's the burden of the neg to prove why their impacts outweigh.

K

You should start with the assumption that I know nothing about your literature base. I will vote for a K if it is specific and interacts with the Aff. I will not vote for generic Ks that are not explained well or lack evidence. Line-by-line is very important for these debates so don't just rely on cards. Unless told specifically otherwise, I assume that life is preferable to death. In order to convince me otherwise, you must prove that a world with no value to life/social death is worse than being biologically dead. My best piece of advice is that if you want me to vote for the K, you must prove how it SOLVES whatever the debate is about. If the K doesn't solve anything, expect an L. I think too often, Ks get away with cheap solvency. My only caveat here is that I am more likely to vote on bad rhetoric Ks/independent voters- these arguments are sometimes very convincing to me.

T

I am not the best person to judge a super in-depth T debate, but I'll do my best. I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could possibly be persuaded to vote another way. I tend to have a high threshold for voting on T so if you are going to go for it, commit to it. T outweighs condo 98% of the time.

Theory

I lean neg on theory. Condo- good and key to neg flex, but it's a debate to be had. For me to vote on generic condo, there needs to be something egregiously abusive going on in the round. My only caveat here is that I am more likely to vote on contra condo. I could be persuaded that going 5+ off with multiple contradictory conditional options is a voting issue for 2AC fairness and education. Any other theory argument I think is categorically a reason to reject the argument and not the team.

Resolution

Please read a plan. Without a plan, often the thesis of the aff gets lost, which is super frustrating. This doesn't mean I won't vote for you, but if you decide to not read a plan just make sure that you thoroughly explain what the aff does.

PF & LD

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

My name is Sarah Chew, and I'm a JV college debater at Samford. I have a year and a half of policy debating experience behind me.

I value clarity, demonstrated understanding of the topic/arguments, and well-thought-out analytics > otherwise unsupported evidence. When you extend evidence, keep flows clear, and do the work to address the arguments on the other side. Be kind both to your own partner and to the competition - one of my pet peeves is cutting off your partner or acting like debate is a one person show. I will give you my full attention and respect while speaking, so you should do the same. Don't steal prep.

If you have questions, please let me know! I'd love to chat! My email is secchew@gmail.com

Dr. Danielle Deavours
Assistant professor, broadcast journalism
Samford University
Former debater and volunteer with Samford Debate Team
ddeavour@samford.edu

Education

PhD, University of Alabama, 2022, media sociology
M.A., University of Alabama-Birmingham, 2019, communication management
B.A., University of Alabama, 2008, telecommunication & film/political science

Professional employment

Samford University, assistant professor, 2022-current
University of Montevallo, assistant professor, 2020-2022
University of Alabama, PhD student and graduate research/teaching assistant, 2019-2021
UAB Medicine, communication and marketing specialist, 2016-2019
American Heart Association, state communication and marketing director, 2015-2017
American Red Cross, communication and marketing director, 2014-2015
WVTM-13, executive producer, 2011-2014
CBS 42, executive producer, 2011
CBS 8, executive producer, 2009-2011

Debate history

Former high school debater in LD, PF, policy, and extemporaneous

Things to know

At the end of the round, I find myself most comfortable voting for a team that has the best synthesis between good ethos, good tech/execution, and good evidence. I will not vote on better evidence if the other team out debates you, but I assign a heavy emphasis on quality evidence when evaluating competing arguments, especially offensive positions. Make sure you're telling me clearly what I should vote on, where you did better than your opponent in making the argument, and ways that your position is stronger. I shouldn't have to guess at why you think you won.

I am a big believer in public speaking and speaker points as a large part of the debate world. I want to feel persuaded, make sure you're connecting with me through eye contact, direct address, and voice emphasis. Don't just read the entire time, although some reading is of course acceptable.

Collegiality and respect of all people is integral to debate. If you cross the line from assertive to aggressive, you will have speaker points deducted. If you cross the line into harassment, you will lose the debate even if you logically win it.

I keep a running clock and "read along" with speech docs where applicable. Err on the side of truth, and make sure your sources are credible.

I will flow your arguments. Successful teams should interact with the other team's arguments and prioritize good line-by-line arguments. If you're not addressing your opponent's arguments, it's likely they will be able to harm your case - perhaps fatally.

Speak as quickly as is comfortable for you, but I need to be able to understand you. As a former spreader, I can understand fast speeds, but make sure you are speaking clearly and with enough emphasis for the judge to understand you. I prefer to be able to understand your speech as opposed to speed. If you are spreading, I prefer you share documents with the judge and your opponent. Speed doesn't always mean that you get more evidence in, especially quality evidence.

email: faindebate@gmail.com

‘24 State Update:

Speed < Clarity - I’ve lost hearing in my left ear so make my life easier by sending clear speech docs for every speech (don’t just arbitrarily decide to not send A2 docs you’ve compiled mid round).

Read whatever you want. I prefer theory over most args. I am not as involved with debate as I used to be so changes in meta or wording are going to go over my head.

I prefer theory to most args andgood clash makes my life easier. I am a firm believer that it is the debater’s responsibility to be both clear from a speaking perspective but also clear in what their arguments mean. Done are the days where I do the work for you and sweat over if my scim reading important philosophical texts is enough to understand complex concepts. Any phil based argument should be explained so that someone new to debate understands what it means.

Specific questions about how I judge should be asked before the round.

My threshold for voting on hidden tricks is really high now. Almost to the point where you’d have to spend 50% > in a speech collapsing to it.

I don’t disclose. I’ll write individual feedback and my email is posted if you have questions.

Hello. My name is Ella Ford, and I am a Varsity debater at Samford University. I am a second-year policy debater.

Please include me on the email chain: eford2@samford.edu

Some things to know about me:

1) My decisions are unbiased, which will be reflected in the comments I make. You are welcome to talk to me after the debate if you think I have been unfair in some way.

2) I am most likely to vote for the team that presents appropriate literature and demonstrates an understanding of the topic.

3) I lean towards tech over truth, but I will evaluate based on the situation.

4) I will flow your arguments. Successful teams should interact with the other team's arguments and prioritize good line-by-line arguments.

5) Speak as quickly as is comfortable for you. I prefer to be able to understand your speech as opposed to speed.

Feel free to email me with questions.

For policy debate,

I am sympathetic to conditionality bad arguments by the affirmative, however, if the negative spends a good amount of time in their next speech answering conditionality then there is no reason for the affirmative to bring it back up.

To be persuaded by topicality arguments, you should provide me with definitions and explanations for why those definitions make your interpretation better.

Samford '25

Pronouns he/him

For Samford HS Tournament: I have 0 topic knowledge. Please overexplain rather than underexplain.

I am a current debater at Samford University where I have qualified twice to the NDT. I competed in debate for 4 years at Rockdale County High School where I won the NAUDL round robin. My entire career I have read almost exclusively policy arguments. For those who care I have been a 2A for 95% percent of my debate career.

Please do not send speech docs as a google doc or PDF (Unless format is important to your speech and changing the format will disrupt the message) if you do your speaks are capped at 28.3

Yes, add me to the email chain aarongilldebate@gmail.com

Tech > Truth and its not even close.

PF and LD debaters might find the first paragraph useful but there is a section for y'all at the bottom!

In deciding rounds often times I find myself to be one of the first judges in as I don't tend to read a lot of evidence. I find that some judges reconstruct the debate through the cards read instead of the actual debating and contextualization done in round and as a result teams win based on quality of evidence not on who actually did the best debating. For this reason, I don't like to read cards unless I find teams having two interpretations of the same idea or inserting a new highlighting of their opponents cards. If you think a piece of evidence should be integral to my decision and is the upmost important that I read it post-round flag in your speech "Aaron you should read this card!"

The Politics disad has to be my favorite debate to have and to judge although many find the link chain to be a little silly. However, this doesn't mean go crazy with a random agenda disad because I also do find myself assigning close to zero and even zero risk of a disad. Specific links to an aff are important but that doesn't mean your generic topic links don't matter either. For aff teams thumpers are the best way to beat generic topic links to disads especially if they post-date the negative's uniqueness evidence.

I lean heavily neg on CP theory and am almost in the realm of giving the negative infinite conditionality. I believe that is the burden of the neg to prove the aff is a bad idea or solves best and thus I think conditionality is the best method for the negative to be able to achieve this. This does not mean you can't go for condo bad in front of me but rather that it probably shouldn't be your A strat and that there should probably be specific in round abuse proven. The more condo the negative reads the more convincing condo bad becomes especially in a world where the negative is implemented 4+ conditional worlds. I feel for the aff for judge kick and having to defend two worlds but I think most times judge kick doesn't matter as the net benefit doesn't work absent a counterplan due to low risk and getting outweighed by the affirmative. There is definitely a debate to be had though on whether or not the neg gets judge kick. Generally I think process/states/agent CPs are all good doesn't mean the theory debate isn't there to be had higher threshold to reject the team versus reject the arg. I have yet to see another method of weighing CP and net benefit outside of sufficiency framing that makes any sense but if you have an alternative I'm happy to hear it and implement it if you win it.

I've began to enjoy kritikal debates more and more as I've become more entrenched in debate through my college career. That does not mean that I think I am a good judge for the K. My depth in kritik literature is quite shallow and it is to the negative's advantage to over-explain their kritik if I am in the back of your round because if I just don't understand what you are kritiking and how the alternative solves that it is unlikely I am to vote on your kritik. I think specific links to the aff are important and if you can point to specific affirmative evidence to prove you link that puts you in a good position for winning your link. In most cases I will weigh the affirmative in some method against the aff unless the negative is just outright winning that the kritik must be a prior-question to the aff. Going for kritiks without the alt I'm hesitant to vote on because without a method of solving how are the links not just FYIs? If you can answer that question feel free to go for the kritik without an alternative.

Topicality is underutilized against policy teams and I think negative teams get scared to go for 5 minutes of just aff is egregiously untopical. I think as a result of this some affs are objectively not resolutional and a few I can point to in recent history where the neg should 100% of the time go for topicality but didn't were Westminster's Treason aff and probably any courts affs on CJR. Standards are a must and I think fairness is an impact. What makes for a good interpretation is probably up for debate and should be well debated by both sides.

FW: Please read a plan. I will vote for a planless aff if well impacted out why it is important that your aff comes before fairness and why the resolution doesn't allow for the discussion that you aff asks for. I think switch side debate solves a lot of offense the K times try to win on T.

PF and LD Debaters

Don't worry about adapting to me I will adapt to you! Just do what you do best and I will follow what you are doing. For LD debaters who do high theory and philosophy you should read the section for Kritiks from my policy paradigm.

HI'm a JV debater at Samford University.

I flow every debate, make sure your arguments will show up on the flow.

INCLUDE ME ON THE EMAIL CHAIN: maddieb0329@gmail.com

Things to be aware of:

1) My decisions are always neutral and unbiased to the degree that I can make them. Feel free to email me or ask any questions after the debate.

2) I am most likely to vote for a team that uses reliable evidence and demonstrates clear understanding of the topic.

3) I have a SUPER low tolerance for rude and disrespectful comments in my presence. I don't care if it is before, during or after the debate. Be respectful.

4) I am most likely to vote for a team who interacts with the opposing teams arguments/claims.

5) I appreciate when teams keep up with their own prep time.

SpeechPreferences:

Please do not go faster than you are capable. If you are not able to clearly enunciate your evidence you need to slow down for the sake of the debate. Speed is not key to winning a debate.

Hi my name is Mary Grace Hammond and I am a member of the college debate team here at Samford University. I have debated 3 semesters in policy debate.

You can add me to the email chain: mgraceh77@gmail.com

Somethings to keep in mind

1: I expect you to be courteous to your opponents in and out of round. Assertive and confident arguments do not necessitate unprovoked in round aggression I will not hesitate to deduct speaker points for this.

2: Make sure to stay organized. Make arguments in order and make it clear what you are answering. The more organized your line by line is the more likely I will be able to follow the arguments you are making and give you points. Please do not go so fast that it hurts your coherency. If I do not understand something you are saying you will not receive points for it.

3: Keep track of your prep time. I will deduct speaker points for this if it is a repeated issue in round.

4: I will make as fair and unbiased a decision as possible. If you have a problem with the decision you are welcome to talk to me after the round or even email me after the tournament to discuss the results in further detail.

specific arguments:

kritiks:

I am familiar with kritiks but I am primarily a policy debater keep this in mind when framing your arguments. If I don't get a well explained and specific link story for your Kritik I will not put the extra mental work in for you to vote on it.

Topicality:

I need a clear abuse story that is clearly weighed against the supposed benefits of the aff. You need to clearly tell me why this argument is bad for debate as a whole and explain the implications of that. My threshold for technical skill on this argument is high so be aware of that. Voting on this may be somewhat opinion based in closer debates be aware of that risk when strategizing in round.

most regular policy arguments (counterplans, disads, and PICS) are all fair game and the most familiar arguments to me.

1) I only flow what is said in the round. If a card is wrong, it is your job to call it out. I only judge based on my flow sheet that is why it important that you say everything you need to say.

I don't flow cross-ex, so if you think that I should flow the things mentioned in cross-ex, make sure you include it during your speeches. Ex) "During Cross-ex, my opponent said this...."

2) Speed: I can flow speed, but I have my limits, so proceed at your own risk. If you feel it absolutely necessary to spread, I will do my best to keep up with the caveat that you are responsible for what I miss (but what I miss, I won't flow). I appreciate folks that value delivery. Take that as you will. If you're going to go fast, you can email me your case (eshika0707@gmail.com).

3) Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD! Thus, please signpost. Also, do an Offtime roadmap, so I know where you're going.

4) You have an absolute obligation to articulate your arguments. Even if I’m familiar with the literature or whatever that you might be referencing I *try* to avoid filling in any gaps.

5) I'm pretty "traditional", but I am working to be more comfortable with progressive arguments. However, I'll vote on many types of arguments (Plans, Counterplans, Ks, Aff Ks, and theory if there is legitimate abuse). However, the more progressive the argument and the further away from the topic, the more in depth and slower your explanation needs to be. Don't make any assumptions about what I'm supposed to know.

6) Debates that don't do any weighing are hard to judge. Be clear about what you think should be on my ballot if you're winning the round.

Laurel Pack (she/her) Varsity public form debater 2020-2023. Current JV policy debater at Samford University.

Email: laurel.a.pack@gmail.com (use this email for any questions before round and for the email chain)

Policy Paradigm

T:

Line-by-line/reasons to prefer are super important to me when extending T into the block. However, I ask that you slow down and annunciate clearly on the T arguments that aren't carded. I also generally lean aff on T, so long as they prove being neg isn't impossible and there is a substantial literature base.

Condo:

Contradictory condo is your strongest story if you run condo. Otherwise, unless condo is not responded to at all (or not responded to sufficiently) I will probably have a pretty difficult time voting on condo over substance of the round.

CP Theory

CPs need to be competitive with the aff and the neg has to make that clear. If I think the CP can happen in the same world as the aff, I probably won't vote neg on the CP. I also don't belive in judge kick, the debater should have to do the strategic work in the round and decide if the CP is worth going for. I also think there should be more focus on CP framing, should the CP solve all of the aff to be sufficient? Not sure. Don't ignore the top-level stuff.

Kritiks:

I think affirmative should defend a plan, ideally this is a topical policy action. I am not a judge who is comfortable judging a kritikal or performance aff. I am also probably not a good judge for a k v k round. I am most comfortable evaluating the K on the neg. I also prefer alts to be specific. My ideal alt would be to advocate for a specific movement or mindset that can proveably resolve the impacts of the aff. Please don't make the alt "reject the aff." The alt should do something. Finally, please don't assume I'm an expert on the literature base you're reading from, you will probably have to walk me through the links clearly and make sure you spell out how we get from point a to point b.

Final Thoughts:

Don't be unethical. No arguments like climate change good. If you read authors who are morally questionable I will absolutely drop the card and will be willing to listen to a procedural about it. I also won't read cards after round unless there is a dispute about what the card says/what it means.

PF Paradigm

TLDR:

• The team speaking first should start an email chain with everyone so exchanging cards is easier. If you're disclosing cases, the case should be a PDF or a WordDoc.
• If your team is doing the second rebuttal, you MUST frontline (spend about a minute on it). No new frontlines should be read in the second summary.
• Your final focus should only be going for 1 of the arguments presented in constructive. Pick a scenario and stay with it, this should be done in summary.
• When you are going for an argument in final focus, every part of it should be extended (uniqueness, link, and impact). An argument without any of those components is not very useful.
• If someone reads a turn, even if you are not going for that argument, you HAVE to respond to the turn before you drop the contention. I consider it offense if the other team decides to point it out.
• SUPER IMPORTANT: Don't look at me in cross exe when you're answering a question, the feeling is reminiscent of when people sing happy birthday to you but you don't know what to do.
• Be nice :)
• I tend to make a lot of facial expressions, please consider them ALL neutral. I have really bad eyesight, most of the time if I look like I'm confused or angry, I'm probably squinting to look at something on my computer. I also worry that I tend to look angry but please don't let this discourage you (I'm most definitely not angry).
• Ask me any questions about my paradigm before the round if you have any, I'm always happy to explain things

More info:

• Constructive: Not much to note, go as fast as you feel comfortable. Warning: I find it really difficult to vote for cases with just one contention (unless it has multiple subpoints) I also very rarely see good cases with three contentions. In 99.9% of cases, the third contention is just one card which wastes time (this time could be better spent reading another card on either of the first contentions).
• Rebuttals: A strong line-by-line is key to the ballot. You should have one or two responses to every point of their argument (uniqueness, link impact) (Signposting is also really important here, please tell me exactly what argument you're addressing). When you give an off-time roadmap, stick to it. Don't say you're starting on their case then start time and go to your own case. This was mentioned above but if you're going second, frontline pretty please.
• Summary: Having a good summary is key to not losing a round. My ideal order of a summary would be collapsing (identifying which scenario your side is focusing on for the rest of the round + responding to any turns read), then immediately weighing the scenario you are going for, and then REALLY in-depth frontlining on everything they read against it in rebuttal. Then, move to their case, talk about why you outweigh any of their scenarios (pre-requisite or turns case arguments are really useful here), and then extend your rebuttals. Note: Summary is a super difficult speech, don't feel like the round is over if you miss one of these things, all will be well. Also, I'm really suspicious of new arguments in the first summary (unless they're frontlines) and I do not accept new arguments in the second summary. If the other team points out you made a new argument in second summary, it won't be evaluated. I will also probably evaluate that argument last, even if they don't point it out.
• Final focus: Extend all the parts of the argument/scenario you're going for and then WEIGH. Literally, be so dramatic during this speech. Ideally should be split half and half between your case and their case, covering their case should focus on what you think are the MOST devastating arguments (arguments they didn't respond to or the ones you find most compelling)
• Cross exe: Please please please be nice. There is nothing I hate more than a super-aggressive cross exe. You can be witty, and sassy, and funny, but there is a very big distinction between that and angrily dominating the conversation. Also, cross exe is binding if the other team points it out (i.e. don't concede the entire case in cross because you think it won't matter).
• Misc. Thoughts: I am constantly saddened by the state of PF. Debates become really repetitive and very surface-level. Clash and creativity are the easiest way to win my ballot. I will 9/10 prefer the smarter, well-thought-out, and compelling argument to one that's super polished but really insufficient in warranting or links.

For Samford:

I have strep and it really hurts to talk so I will give an oral RFD if we're allowed but I'll go into more detail on the written RFD.

Please send a speech doc for each speech because I don't trust my internet. My email is bentp2017@outlook.com

I don't know anything about this topic so don't just go into the round expecting me to know all the background info.

--------

Hi, I’m Ben (any pronouns) and I debated LD at Auburn High for 3 years. I haven't had exposure to debate in like almost a year so treat me like a knowledgable lay judge. I’m better at judging traditional rounds because I don’t have much experience with progressive arguments. But with that being said I ran a lot of prog argumentsfor fun my senior year so I somewhat understand them and if you really want to run one just over explain. I would really appreciate a speech doc for each speech but I definitely need them for online tournaments. I’m okay with speed but if you’re going to spread, again, send a speech doc. Don't be rude and don't take rounds too seriously that is cringe. If you’re funny then I will boost your speaker points. I’m going to time you but make sure you time yourself as well. I feel like usually it’s better to use they/them pronouns for your opponents in round, but if you would rather something else just let me know. Read trigger warnings before triggering arguments. Don’t be racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. Also please don't call me "sir" I am literally 18 years old. I'm a big fan of joke cases so feel free to run them. Lastly, if you run a super dense K that only people with PhD's will understand I will zone out and start watching Glee clips on TikTok. If you have anymore questions feel free to ask me before round.

Have fun

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

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

Below is a more comprehensive list of my judging preferences:

1 - LARP/Policy

2 - Trad

3 - K's

4 - Dense Phil

Strike - Tricks

Preferences (LD):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preferences (Public Forum):

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

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

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

Speech Preferences:

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

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

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

Name: Grace Scott

Pronouns: she/her

Email: 84gracescott@gmail.com

My name is Grace Scott. I am a junior at Samford University. I came into the debate community new freshman year, and have really been enjoying the rigor and joy of this singular activity.

TLDR:

Context is king.

Don't be an jerk, be effective.

Re: Prep time. 1) USE IT ALL. 2) Be transparent if things get funky – tech time, delays, etc

Essentials:

I value arguments that are brought up consistently and clearly.

Regarding evidence v analytics, I value clash. The context of how an argument is being made changes how I value it. For example, if someone makes a point, contextualizes it in the debate, and uses evidence to back it up, I value that over analytics no matter how good the analytics are. However, if evidence is used in a rote manner that does not engage the other side and the opponent's analytics are highly specific, responsive, and intelligent, I will prefer the analytics. It's contextual, so be specific and responsive.

I don't value hostility in cross x. Cross x is for clarifying and communicating to your opponents and to your judge. You don't need to be passive, but if the hostility is such that it doesn't move the ideas forward, you are wasting time for both of us.

When giving my RFD, my goal is to communicate how I understood the debate and give you feedback you can use to improve your debating.

To avoid my pet peeves:

Don’t leave time on the clock. It is better to stand up there in the painful silence and shuffle through your flows. This gives you time to think analytics off the fly and shows tenacity. Lay judges may appreciate the politician like appearance of composure. I want to see you practice skills that will win you debates.

COMMUNICATE WITH ME ABOUT TECH ISSUES.

I am not here to police your prep time. You are honorable competitors, and I am not a cop. I trust that when you are running prep time you are prepping, and when the timer has stopped you are transitioning to giving a speech.

If you feel like your opponents are stealing prep, feel free to call them out (respectfully and professionally). I'm cool with it. My partner and I do so regularly. A simple, "Are y'all running prep?" or "And how much time do y'all have left?" will suffice.

If you run into a problem outside your control, let me know and use your tech time (equivalent to your prep time), it’s there for a reason. Narrating what you are doing, “I’m saving the document” “I’m pressing reply all” “The doc is attached and once it loads, I will press send” are great ways to ensure transparency.

I would love to chat with you about debate, or about Samford debate. Feel free to shoot me an email if you have further questions.

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

--------

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

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

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

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

--------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--------

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

Please be on time for check-in. Also if you're interested in college debate, I'd love to talk to you about Samford debate!!

If you have any questions about things not on my paradigm, feel free to ask before the round or email me.

Email: joeytarnowski@gmail.com

he/him

Background

Policy debate at Samford (class of 24), qualified to NDT 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024

4 years of LD in high school

Judging

Don't say/run things that are egregiously offensive, i.e. racism/sexism/etc. good, death good, etc.

I would recommend starting off your speech at like 75-80% speed to give me a second to adjust before you build up to full speed. Clear differentiation between tags and the card body is also appreciated.

I do a lot of work on both the policy and critical side of debate in college. I generally am of the predisposition that the aff should defend some implementation of the resolution, the specifics of what that may mean is flexible, but choosing to mostly or entirely jettison the resolution is not the best strategy in front of me. I think Ks on the neg are most successful when forwarding a nuanced indict of some underlying assumptions/mechanisms of the aff, and that affs are typically most successful in reasons why the neg is not able to explain key portions of the aff and leveraging that against the K's explanation of the world.

I'm generally more neg leaning on CP theory debates and typically default heavily to reasonability and rejecting the argument, but I think especially egregious practices can make me swing more toward the middle on issues like condo (i.e. 2NC CPs out of straight turns or kicking planks on CPs with a ton of planks that do a ton of different things). Love a good impact turn debate, hate a stale impact turn debate. Otherwise I don't have any especially notable preferences when it comes to policy arguments, impact calc at the top is always good, evidence comparison is great, etc.

I'm an ok judge for T but am not the biggest fan of it as a throwaway strategy that only occupies a small portion of the neg block. Significant time investment in evidence comparison is much more important to me here and often is a make-or-break.

Note for LD: I would not consider myself a good judge for "tricks". If you regularly do things like hide blippy theory arguments or rely on obfuscating tactics to win debates, I am probably not the best judge for you.

Local/Lay Debate

First and most importantly, I am excited to be judging you and glad you are a part of this activity!

I will disclose my decision and give any feedback I can as long as it is not explicitly prohibited by the tournament, and strongly believe the process of disclosure/feedback/asking questions is one of the most important parts of debate. You are always welcome to ask questions about my decision, ask for advice, clarification, etc. or email me and I will always be happy to help in whatever ways I can (assuming you aren't blatantly rude).

I did a lot of lay debate in high school, it was probably 80% or more of what I did, so I can really appreciate a slower debate. My advice for you is to do what you do best and are most comfortable with, don't feel like you have to spread or read positions you are unfamiliar with because of my policy background, as I started out and have spent almost half of my debate career doing slow, traditional debate. Some other things you should know:

1] One of the most important aspects of my judging is that I think the bar for explanation is generally too low for most debates. If you want to win an argument, you shouldn't just explain what your argument is, but the reasoning behind WHY it's true, as well as what the implication is for that argument being true.

2] Please make sure you have and can show me the full text of any evidence you read. I may not need to reference any evidence after the round, but if I do I would prefer you have it readily available. I would heavily prefer this is made easier by setting up an email chain with me and your opponent where all evidence read in-round is exchanged, both for the purposes of transparency and quality of things like evidence comparison.

3] I often find framework debates in lay LD have little direction or warrants. This is especially true when both sides have a similar or identical framework, and I think those debates would often be drastically improved by the neg just conceding framework and the rest of the debate focusing just on substance.

I also really appreciate folks who have a clear understanding of things like evidence comparison and strategy, I feel most people overlook the ability to make smart strategic decisions and leverage evidence comparison in lay debate. Knowing your evidence and author qualifications and effectively utilizing them are powerful strategic tools, as well as making smart strategic concessions in other parts of the debate to get things like a strong time tradeoff on other important parts of the debate.