Hey y'all

I'm a fourth-year debater from Vestavia Hills High School.

Case: Make sure your case has impacts. It is hard for me to vote on an argument that doesn't tell me how or which population is affected by their impacts. However, make sure you also have warrants. Even if your case has big numbers, I will not evaluate any of your impacts if you don't give me any explanations as to how you get there. Don't worry if your case does not get to 4 minutes; I still evaluate all arguments presented in that timeframe.

Speaking: Speak clearly. For me, you can go a little bit fast and I will still be able to understand your argument. However, I will indicate for you to slow down if you are going too fast. Most importantly, mumbling is gonna negatively affect your speaker points and make it a lot harder to understand. Send speech docs if you plan on spreading. Email is aaryaaluri143@gmail.com

Prog: By all means go ahead and do it. Just beware that my experience with progressive args is pretty limited to theory. I'll evaluate it to the best of my abilities.

Rebuttal: Prioritize offense over defense. In 1st rebuttal, do not go back onto your case unless it is an absolute necessity and you believe you have no other way to fill the 4 minutes. Weighing is not a necessity in 1st rebuttal but it would be good if you started weighing early in round. Weighing should be in 2nd rebuttal. No talking between teammates in rebuttal or any speech for that matter. 2nd rebuttal must respond to all offense that 1st rebuttal brings. 2nd rebuttal would be good to collapse but it is not required for me. Defense is not sticky.

Weighing: WEIGHING IS NECESSARY. I must know why your argument is more important than theirs to be able to vote for you. Additionally, weighing can't be one-sided. You must weigh COMPARING your impact to theirs as opposed to just restating their impact. It can start in rebuttal but IT MUST START IN SUMMARY.

Summary: 1st summary MUST COLLAPSE ON ONE ARGUMENT. Summary must also respond to all offense presented on ALL of their contentions. Summary must also have clean extensions of their case and turns in order for them to stay on my flow. 2nd summary is largely a reactive speech that must respond to the points brought up by 1st summary.

Final Focus: Largely resembles summary. NO NEW INFORMATION IN FINAL FOCUSES. Weighing, case extensions and turn extensions must be present.

Have fun with this activity. It gives back what you give it. You make connections the more you stay in the activity. I will do my best to ease your nerves and help y'all grow in this adventure.

YOU'RE GONNA KILL IT!!!!

Jordan Berry - Loveless Academic Magnet Program High School

Hello!

I have been a coach and judge since 2015. Most debaters over the years categorize me as a traditional L/D judge. My chief weighing mechanism is usually framework (my undergraduate degree is in philosophy), but I can be persuaded to the contrary. I have no value hierarchy. I strive to keep personal views and ballot intervention away from my RFD. I will evaluate only those arguments brought up by the debaters.

Speed is an issue for me. This is primarily an education and communication activity. I highly doubt either Lincoln or Douglas themselves were spreading, and I've never seen spreading in any real-life situation aside from episodes of "Storage Wars." I do flow the round (though not cross), but "winning the flow" isn't the same as winning the round in some cases; this event is supposed to be persuasive and accessible, not a checklist of responses and replies. Thus, I always roll my eyes when one of my debaters complains about "lay" judges: in crafting a case/round, they should receive as much consideration as that ex-policy debater.

Other issues for me: do be respectful. Do engage meaningfully with the resolution. Do be honest. Do have fun.

Break a leg!

jordan.berry@mps.k12.al.us

P.S. All this extinction stuff is just debaters trolling, right?

Hello There! If you are reading this page before the round I would ask that you please adhere to the things I have listed below. As a former debater I am familiar with most events (with a couple of exceptions) so if you are not respectful of the rules for the event or for your fellow competitors you will be downranked. Also - I do not discriminate on basis of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. I employ a zero tolerance policy for discriminatory and/or disparaging conduct. Such language or actions will result in a ranking of last and a note on your ballot. I will sort my paradigms by event below starting with Interp/Speech events.

Interp/Speech:

Default time signals are 3 down & fist. Just have fun and be yourself!

Extemp:

This is simple - Follow the Unified Analysis Format and you will be fine!

LD/PF:

I prefer traditional debate, so please follow the traditional debate structure. Don't cut off your opponents during questioning (unless they're rambling.) Give them an opportunity to answer the question. I generally don't flow questioning, so bring up the point in your speech. Please go a little slower during your speeches. If I can't understand you, I will say "clear." If I can't understand you after that, I won't be able to flow the rest of your speech.

Congress:

A disclaimer - I was a two-time national qualifier in Congress, so I know this event very well. Watch where in the round you place your speeches. If you are rebutting an argument in your speech, make sure you also introduce a new argument. Just rehashing old arguments does not contribute meaningfully to the debate. I give POs a fair bit of leeway to run things, but if you're egregiously breaking the rules or the chamber is in chaos, that will reflect poorly on you.

In closing, I judge fairly based on the merits of everyone's performance. If you have any questions for me don't hesitate to ask.

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.

Primarily, I am a coach and educator. I have always felt strongly that debate is a contest of ideas and communication skills. I have no preferences in the round; however, if you speak so quickly that your ideas are diminished, I will have a hard time voting for you, especially if your opponent is more articulate (even with weaker arguments).
I vote on whatever I found to be effective in the round. The more specific your arguments are to what happens in the debate, the greater your chances of earning my ballot. I’m looking for clash and reward debaters who work to ensure it is achieved.

I am philosophically opposed to disclosing my ballot at the end of the round. I will only offer oral critique if I saw something that I think I could share to help you with the remaining rounds in the tournament (adjusting your case, how you could have argued more effectively, etc.). Everything else I am thinking during the round I will note on the ballot.

1.Your background in debate (did you debate in high school or college? If so, where, when, and what events?)

I have taught communication/rhetoric for 10 years. I have coached debate for six.

2. How many years have you been judging? How many rounds do you typically judge each year?

I have been judging for 5 years. I normally judge 5 tournaments a year.

3. Do you have any argument preferences or speaking style preferences that debaters should be aware of?

I do not like spreading. I prefer straightforward arguments, but I do not mind more meta-arguments.

4. When the debate is over, what process do you use to pick a winner (use of evidence, direct clash, speaking style, impact calculations, layers of the debate, etc.)?

I assess the arguments laid out, consider evidence, speaking style, impact, and presentation.

Other thoughts:

-Don't be rude. I do not respond well to aggressive CX

-Signpost. I will be flowing and without clear signposting, I will have a difficult time doing so without those signposts.

-I like to see congenial debaters who are respectful of their opponents.

-Generally, arguments that devolve into debating the worth of a single piece of evidence or contention drawn out across multiple speeches do not interest me. Of course, this is not true if the evidence or contention is integral to the overall argument.

-I like seeing passion and emotion. I dislike dull recitals of speeches with a monotone voice. However, I equally dislike zealous, over-the-top speaking.

-Eye contact is important. I understand looking down to remind yourself of your points and structure, but do not like it when speakers stare at a piece of paper the whole time.

Hello,

I have judged Speech and Debate for 1 year now. This is my first year as a Coach and I look forward to watching you compete!

While judging Lincoln-Douglas I keep personal views and opinions separate from judging, so I will judge purely off your framework. While I understand the personal benefits to spreading, I do not find speaking extremely fast to be in the spirit of true debate. As long as you speak clearly and it is comprehendible, I am fine with your choice of speed throughout the round. I will flow the round to ensure I understand each contention and how it relates to your value/value criterion. Please remain respectful and have a great time debating!

All the best!

Public Forum:

I debated PF 4 years in high school. I have judged for PF for the past 3-4 years.

Round procedure:

Try not to spread. Your points are important and it is crucial that I catch what you are saying.

Address dropped arguments throughout the round.

Make sure you use authentic evidence because I will call for cards.

Stand for speeches, but what you do for cross is up to you.

Make sure you signpost.

Speaker points:

In addition to being able to carry out arguments, I will weigh in confidence, projection, ability to remain assertive and not become aggressive or hostile.

Respect is super important in a round. DO NOT cut off your opponent. While I do not flow cross, it can play a role in the speaker points.

I am a new judge, I have read a little bit about the topic in which you are debating today. As a new judge, please no spreading, weigh your impacts, and time yourself. 

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

Notes:

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

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

Keep your own time

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

I probably won’t disclose unless I have to

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

I am a lay judge and have been judging speech and debate for about 6 years. I believe that debate should include a clear presentation of your arguments and evidence. I also believe your speeches should be well organized. In the end, I will value argument over style, but the way you present your arguments is important to my understanding of those arguments. If you call for evidence, please have a legitimate reason for it. I don't like spending a lot of prep time on it. I expect you to time yourselves, but I will be timing too. I like clear, organized flows with clear voters at the end. I weigh heavily on impacts so compare your impacts and convince me that yours are stronger. Please be civil and respectful to your partner and competitors.

My background is in theatre and speech. I love judging speech events and will typically vote for the presenter who has the strongest emotional connection to their piece and the audience. There must be an effective balance of design, style, and presentation. The pieces that showcase who you are as a performer as well as communicating something new and fresh are welcome.

For Debate Rounds: PLEASE do not use time in the debate to email evidence back and forth. Research is supposed to be completed before the round starts. I want to see students who have gained some mastery of the topic at hand. Also, I will not read evidence you send me. I am here to judge how well you argue your case by giving speeches in the times given, I am not here to complete assigned reading. If you want me to know what a card says, tell me in your speeches.

MY EXPERIENCE & SKILL LEVEL: I coached PF for one year back in 2008-2009. I never did debate in high school, and have no competence for keeping up with technical debate or a rigorous flow. I know that the words flow, cross-apply, turn, etc… exist and have something to do with debate, but if you use them in the round, you will probably lose me. While I would like to be able to flow fast speech, I simply lack that ability, so if you decide to go with a technical, policy-like style, just know that I will not be able to keep up. You might make the best argument that has ever been seen in the history of the world, but I will miss it.

MY PREFERENCES: I like conversational debate that comes down to the important core issues at the heart of the resolution. I want to see that you have not only researched and learned a million facts about the topic, but that you understand what you are talking about. For me, the evidence and ideas you use in a debate aren’t mere cards to stack against other debater’s card stacks like a game of political Pokémon; these are real issues with real impacts in the real world you really live in. I want to see a sincere, good-faith debate that takes the issues seriously. If you can throw in a nice rhetorical device here and there like alliteration or a clever turn of phrase, that would probably subconsciously help win me over, too. Most of all, I want to see everyone learn from the round, get better at dealing with difficult topics, hone their speaking skills, and feel good about doing their best.

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 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.

Willing to give progressive a chance.

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

Jay Rye - Head Coach - Montgomery Academy

Experience- I have been involved with L/D debate since 1985 as a former L/D debater, judge, and coach. I have been involved with Policy debate since 1998. I have coached Public Forum debate since it began in 2002. While at many tournaments I serve in the role as tournament administrator running tournaments from coast to coast, every year I intentionally put myself into the judge pool to remain up to date on the topics as well as with the direction and evolving styles of debate. I have worked at summer camps since 2003 - I understand debate.

Philosophy

I would identify myself as what is commonly called a traditional L/D judge. Both sides have the burden to present and weigh the values and/or the central arguments as they emerge during the course of the round. I try to never allow my personal views on the topic to enter into my decision, and, because I won't intervene, the arguments that I evaluate are the ones brought into the round - I won't make assumptions as to what I "think" you mean. I am actually open to a lot of arguments - traditional and progressive - a good debater is a good debater and an average debater is just that - average.

While for the most part I am a "tabula rasa" judge, I do have a few things that I dislike and will bias me against you during the course of the round either as it relates to speaker points or an actual decision. Here they are:

1) I believe that proper decorum during the round is a must. Do not be rude or insulting to your opponent or to me and the other judges in the room. Not sure what you are trying to accomplish with that approach to debate.

2) Both sides must tell me why to vote "for" them as opposed to simply why I should vote "against" their opponent. In your final speech, tell me why I should vote for you - some call this "crystallization" while others call it "voting issues" and still others just say, "here is why I win" - whatever you call it, I call it letting your judge know why you did the better job in the round.

3) I am not a big fan of speed. You are more than welcome to go as fast as you want, but if it is not on my flow, then it was not stated, so speed at your own risk. Let me say that to the back of the room - SPEED AT YOUR OWN RISK! If you have a need for speed, at the very least slow down on the tag lines as well as when you first begin your speech so that my ears can adjust to your vocal quality and tone.

4) I am not a big fan of "debate speak: Don't just say, cross-apply, drop, non-unique, or other phrases without telling me why it is important. This activity is supposed to teach you how to make convincing arguments in the real world and the phrase "cross-apply my card to my opponents dropped argument which is non-unique" - this means nothing. In other words, avoid being busy saying nothing.

5) Realizing that many debaters have decided to rely on the Wiki, an email chain, and other platforms to exchange the written word, in a debate round you use your verbal and non-verbal skills to convince me as your judge why you win the round. I rarely call for evidence and I do not ask to be on any email chain.

This will be my 5rd year serving as a judge (12th tournament). I have a child who is involved in debate with a focus on PF. I have judged mostly PF but also a number of LD rounds. I understand that speed is important to presenting all of your ideas on the topic, however, speed without clarity may lead to confusion or my inability to evaluate the argument. I also feel like all competitions should reflect good sportsmanship and be civil in nature. I prefer to have factual information to substantiate your case and support your argument. Please weigh in summary and final focus and make sure to present all of your arguments and analysis prior to the final focus. Finally, while many of these topics are serious discussions, remember to have fun. See you in round!

The basics: I’m a former debater. I primarily competed in policy throughout high school, (although I have done LD, PF, Congress, and Improv). I graduated HS in 2013, and did Model UN in college. As such, I am familiar with the basics of each format, and can understand spreading, but I am not coming into the round with an in-depth knowledge base or set of preconceptions about the topic.

I am open to any form of argumentation. It is the job of both sides within the confines of the round to give me a paradigm by which to evaluate them, and to explain how/why they prevail within that paradigm.

If you have specific questions, feel free to ask before we begin.

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.

For most of my judging/coaching tenure, I have not included a paradigm, and that is because I do not believe my personal opinions are particularly relevant to the way you argue your case or present your program. You do you. But kids seem to want paradigms, so here it is:

1) Be logical. Impacts that don't link up are illogical. I probably won't believe it. Not every action leads to nuclear war, kids. Thankfully.

2) Speak clearly. If you love to spread, ok. But if I can't understand you, I can't evaluate you. It's like you didn't say it.

3) Be professional. Aggressive tactics are fine; rudeness is not.

I am a lay judge but a former English teacher and librarian. I insist on credible sources, quality research, and a well-organized debate. Please use introductory statements, transitions, and make frequent connections between the resolution and your contentions. If I cannot follow your argument, I cannot vote for it. Weigh your impacts, tell me why your evidence is better, and tell me why your argument should win. Avoid spreading. AND PLEASE do not waste time when calling for evidence. It really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Be respectful of your opponents, have fun, and present your best self.