Please be on time for check-in.

Email: Gracenicoleb@gmail.com

She/her

Background

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

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 not vote on 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.

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.

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. If it is not 100% clear on the distinction between the cp and the plan, outline the differences for me.

DA

Be clear on the link level. 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

My opinions on K debate come secondary to my flows. 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 evidence. Unless told specifically otherwise, I assume that life is preferable to death. 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 if you want me to vote for the K is you should prove how it either solves the impacts of the aff or rejects it. I think too often, Ks get away with cheap solvency.

Topicality

I am not the best person to judge a super in-depth T debate, especially on this topic, but I'll do my best. I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could be persuaded to vote another way (i.e. reasonability).

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 round. My only caveat is that I am more likely to vote on contradictory condo. I canbe 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/Framework

I will vote for an untopical aff, but I'd prefer that you read a plan. Without a plan, often the thesis of the aff gets lost, which is super frustrating. If you decide not to read a plan, just make sure that you thoroughly explain what the aff does. I am probably not a good judge for more performance-based aff/negs that are not tied to the resolution. For the neg, fairness (yes, it is an impact) and clash are the most persuasive arguments to me. I'm also a huge fan of good TVAs that prove that there is no scholarship loss for the affirmative, but there needs to be a good amount of time warranting this out. It should also be noted that I despise 3+ disads on framework, especially when they are said back-to-back and are not flowable.

PF & LD

You must explain the warrants of the evidence you read and should 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. Lastly, I hate tricks and think they are bad for debate. My threshold for affs answering these are incredibly low.

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.

As a lay judge with a background as a history teacher, I prioritize credible sources, thorough research, and a well-structured debate. Make sure to use clear introductory statements, smooth transitions, and frequently connect your arguments to the resolution. If your argument is not clear to me, I won't be able to support it. Assess the significance of your impacts, explain why your evidence is superior, and justify why your argument should prevail. Avoid spreading your arguments too thin, and please refrain from wasting time during evidence calls—it leaves a negative impression. Be respectful towards your opponents, enjoy the process, and present your best work.

Update for 2024 Blake LDRR

I’ve coached Speech and Debate for 10 years. I did not compete in high school, yet have come to be very involved in the activity. I have been very involved in nat circuit PF during my coaching span (camps, NSDA committees, nat circuit). I sporadically will judge LD, mostly trad local circuit but some nat circuit LD. My exposure to certain types of LD argumentation is limited, but I am willing to vote on anything.

Trad: This is probably where I am most comfortable given my background. However for the round robin, it would be a travesty to have a trad debate in my opinion.

Policy: I am also very comfortable with policy style argumentation. I enjoy judging CPs, Plans, etc

T/heory: I understand the value of theory in debate. I know the parts of theory, etc but have limited experience judging theory debates. I think theory is a necessary check for abuse so if you want to go for it I’m down to evaluate it. You might need to do a bit more work on it in later speeches though to make sure I fully understand why I should vote on it. Please do interactive weighing on standards for competing interps. If you are going for the RVI make sure it’s convincing and reasonable. I feel like just saying “I’m fair and proved I’m fair and therefore should win” is not enough.

K’s: I think K’s are great for debate and can be fascinating to judge. However, like theory, I have limited experience evaluating them. I do not want that to discourage you from running it though. You would probably need to do some adaptations though, such as giving it a bit more time to explain it so I fully understand, as well as how it functions, why you are winning it, and how that means I should vote for you (or the converse if you are against it). Knowing you might need to put a little bit more time into certain things, time allocation will be key. As for Aff K’s you can try but I probably lean a little more to T framework when making a gut check between the two.

Heavy phil: This is probably the hardest round for me to evaluate if I am being honest. A lot of times I get lost in the weeds here. If you want to go for it, make sure you break it down simply for me.

As for spreading and flowing, I will flow on paper and will not flow from the doc. From past experiences judging LD on nat circuit it seems like a lot of spreading is just mumble and incoherent. I am not against spreading as long as it is clear and I can flow it. If you spread analytics at max speed, I might miss one or two. Give a pause between them for me to get to the next one. Slow down for signposts, tags, and cites at the least.

I will not call for evidence or evaluate evidence myself, unless a debater specifically tells me to. I believe evidence weighing and clash should happen in the round and I will not do it for you. If there is direct evidence clash with no evidence weighing, I will call it a wash and try to vote somewhere else. If your opponent is being shady with evidence, call it out and I will look at the evidence then.

I understand debate is a game and am willing to vote on most anything except friv theory and tricks. As an educator, I still want debates to be educational and I don’t see much education happening there. I evaluate debates from the flow/line by line, but arguments that have warrants, reasons why you are winning them in comparison to your opponent’s answers and arguments, and why they matter for the round will greatly be favored. I want you to play to your strengths and debate what and how you enjoy debating. That might require some adaptation and time reallocation based on my experience, but I am willing to listen and evaluate it.

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.

As a new judge, I have read a bit about today’s topic but ask that you refrain from spreading, weigh your impacts carefully, and time yourself. As a business education teacher, I value credible sources, logical reasoning, and a well-structured debate. Please use clear introductory statements, transitions, and consistently connect the resolution to your contentions. If I can’t follow your argument, I won’t vote for it. I find that many PF debates are just evidence clashes, so don’t just present facts—tell me why they matter and why I should vote for you. Avoid spreading; clarity is key. Please don’t waste time when calling for evidence, as it disrupts the debate. Above all, be respectful, have fun, and present your best self.

I am a new judge with very little debate experience. Please time speeches and keep up with prep time. No fast talking. I like to see well-developed arguments that engage the opponent. Don’t assume I am an expert on the topic; it’s public forum. I am more interested in how you debate evidence in speeches than reading anything after the round. Funny is good but be kind to one another!

Hello! My name is Mason Edwards. I went to Saint James School and was a former student of Dr. Ian Turnipseed. I did Public Form, extemporaneous speaking, impromptu, informative speaking, and congress in high school.

I’m gonna take notes from the debate. I like convincing arguments, clear rebuttals, and engaged delivery. The debater that does the best job of connecting with me, the judge, will probably win.

Have a good attitude, be respectful, and have fun!

My name is Matt Ferguson. I currently teach psychology and two film studies classes at Mountain Broook High School and for many I taught US History and a Government course. I have judged several tournaments in the past. Events included public forum, and several speech events.

Hello, I’m Cal Floyd, first off, thanks for reading the paradigm, I’m just going to lay down some basic expectations/preferences for the debates

-I consider myself an experienced debater/judge, do with that what you will

-I can flow at any speed, so speak at what is comfortable, although please do not spread unless you are confident in your dictation

-Please signpost

-In PF, I will attempt to primarily judge off of the last 2 sets of speeches, so bring up any points you really want me to know

-I will most likely know of any contentions you dropped, dropped contentions will not be considered

-No personal attacks and/or mudslinging, please be polite

-There is room for humor in debate, I wouldn’t mind a joke or two (might even help speaks)

-Do not be Racist, Sexist, Homophobic, etc

If you have any more questions feel free to ask

Hi everybody! My name is Blaire and I mainly competed in PF and OO but have some experience in Congress. I debated for most of my high school career, and qualified for and competed in the 2023 NSDA Nationals tournament. I am currently attending Auburn University and am getting a bachelor's in public relations.

For PF rounds, I like arguments that are clear and packed with evidence. I will not flow cross so if you want to use something said you'll need to bring it up later in round. I will, however, take note of disrespect or aggressive communication at any point in round. The loudest/most aggressive team isn't guaranteed the win. I appreciate good public speaking skills. I am anti-spreading. If I can not hear you clearly it doesn't matter how good your argument is. Confidence is key, if you believe you then I'll believe you. I'm not going to cut you off if you go over time but I will stop flowing and I won't take anything said after the timer ends into consideration for the win. I ask that y'all not interrupt the person speaking if they go over time for the sake of respect. Do not bring up anything new in Final Focus, it will not be flowed. Don't waste precious time on something I can not flow, you only have two minutes. Please sign post! Don't forget to weigh in summary!!!

For Speech events, clarity is key. I love topics that are creative and unexpected. Passion is an important component and if I can tell you don't really care about what you're talking about it won't land as well as it could. Best advice I can offer for speech is don't overthink it, speak enthusiastically and be well-informed and you'll do just fine. Be confident not cocky. If you mess up DON'T STOP! I'll only be able to tell if you let me. Just keep going.

For Congress, be articulate and professional. Please do not be aggressive towards other congressmen. PLEASE be aware of the procedure and rules of Congress before arriving.

If you have any questions for me please don't hesitate to ask, my email is bcg0040@auburn.edu

Good luck!

Hello! My name is Alison Hyde, and I am newer to judging debate. Please treat me like a lay judge, and help make it as easy as possible for me to cast my ballot. I am a judge who will be voting off of my flow. With that said...

My preferences:

1. Please don't spread/talk super fast- as a flow judge it makes it harder for me to catch all the great arguments that are made in the round.
2. I don't have much experience with progressive argumentation or theory, so if you do run it, please explain it well and make it an important voting issue in the round.
3. Debate lingo- I understand basic debate terms, but outside of that if you say some new term for debate the likelihood that I won't understand it is high.
4. Please include off-time roadmaps before your speeches- it helps me to keep my flows organized.
5. Please speak clearly and explain your arguments well- I usually like to give high speaks.

Looking forward to a great round!

** If you have any questions regarding my paradigm, please ask me before the round begins.

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

Make sure case is organized and well formatted 

Have clear tags and contentions 

make sure you are going line by line 

talking fast is fine as long as things are pronounced properly and I can hear you 

absolutely no spreading

I’m looking for how well you can defend your argument 

I Don’t prefer spreading, but as long as you’re clear and understandable then it’s perfect.
Don’t be rude, it’s not great. Although, aggression during cross is fun, given it is not rude.

I care about format so organize your cases.

If a point is not responded to then I will consider it dropped. Impacts. Those are important. Make or break kinda stuff.

No matter how bad your case is, make me believe it’s worth voting for.

Hi! I have been debating at Vestavia Hills High School for four years now.

Evidence - If the evidence is sketch... I will call for it

Rebuttal - Signpost!!! Tell me exactly what you are doing/responding to

Summary/Final Focus - Weigh!! Signpost PLEASE! Say where you are on the flow

Crossfire - I don't flow crossfire, but if you want to tell me something that happened in crossfire, then say it in the next speech. Be respectful! Do not interrupt others when they are speaking. Yelling and screaming at each other will NOT help you win the round

Keep your own time (prep, speeches)

Have fun! :)

The best way to my ballot is to weigh. Weighing is inherently comparative, warrant your weighing and compare links/impacts to your opponents'. If both teams have offense left by the end of the round, I need to know why yours matters more. This is also true with weighing mechanisms themselves (I appreciate meta-weighing). The earlier you start weighing, the better.

Run whatever you want. Theory should be used to check abuses. I won't auto-drop the K, but I wouldn't call myself the most qualified in K-debate. I don't see this a whole lot in PF, so the more progressive your debate becomes, the more you need to explain it to me.

Any speed is good, just be clear.

Please don't give me a soliloquy for your "off-time roadmap." Just tell me which side of the flow you're starting on.

Signpost in every speech following the constructive. If I look lost, I probably am.

I don’t pay attention to cross. If something important happens, then bring it up in your next speech.

For the love of god, give me warrants and extend the warranting throughout the round. Literally everything needs warranting (case, responses, weighing, framing, evidence weighing, theory, etc.). I do not understand why more teams do not spend more time at the warrant-level.

Evidence clash is good. Tell me why your evidence is better/more important.

Collapse. The. Flow.

If you don't frontline, it will be incredibly hard to win my ballot. Not impossible, just very difficult.

If you want it in the final focus, it needs to be in the summary. This is true for extensions, weighing, framing, etc. If you drop it, you will be hard pressed to find me evaluating it by the end of the round.

I vote neg on presumption.

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

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

Preferences (LD):

1 - LARP/Policy

2 - Trad

3 - K's

4 - Dense Phil

Strike - Tricks

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

hello, i'm Alexia! i go to Auburn High School and this is my 3rd year debating.

i'm pretty calm; don't do anything hurtful and be respectful to everyone in the room!

• i vote based off my flow
• speaker points: i will not tolerate bigotry; if i hear any belittling of opponents and/or other people, i will dock your speaks to a 25 or below.
• weigh and do it effectively!!
• tech > truth
• time: please keep your time, i will not do it for you. use up all your time!
• lastly, remember to have fun when debating! don't be too disheartened if you've lost a round, i promise it's not the end of the world! just have as much fun as you can!! :))

here's my email if you have any questions: ahrgcr107@gmail.com

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.

Give roadmaps before each speech

I like to see framework debate and connection of contentions/arguments back to value and criterion.

I am not a fan of spreading (speaking extremely fast), but I will not count off if I can still understand you.

I will be keeping time, but I suggest you do, too.

Voters help me weigh the round.

Hey guys,

My name is Kayla, I'm a sophomore at Auburn University majoring in law and justice and marketing. I did PF debate for about 2 years throughout high school.

PF debate:

As for my judging, I like to think I'm not too strict. Just do not spread; speak clearly and loudly, be organized. Please make sure you have a reliable source for your information and make sure to state it when you are speaking. I do not write down anything from cross unless it is mentioned in summary or in rebuttal. Remember not to bring in new information in final focus. I will be timing as well, but just to be safe I would recommend you keep track of your own time. I also like provide feedback at the end of the debate, everything I say will be typed out on the ballots if you would like to refer to some notes. Finally, use all of your time, even if you're just dragging onto what you already said. I look forward to meeting you guys, and goodluck (: !

LD debate:

Your framework should be is strong. You should prove why your framework is more superior than the other. I like to focus more on style and how persuasive your argument is. That being said, I am huge on weighing. Make sure you tell me why your argument is should win and why it is more important. Please do NOT spread! I feel like I'm pretty good with speed but if you are speaking way too fast I will stop flowing. Time management is also a must, I feel that when you use all of your time your credibility is better. If you have any questions about my judging please feel free to ask about it!

(Bonus Points to anyone who reads this whole thing.)

I'm not a very technical judge so I will be basing my decision on the following

• No spreading-- Maintain a good pace, volume, and eye-contact
• No bringing up new information in the final summaries
• I will look at content on the topic-- but not too closely
• Please keep track of your time-- I will also be timing you but please the maintain appropriate times
• I will not be looking too closely at cross-fire unless it is brought up again in your speech
• Please maintain a friendly attitude towards each other
• I will be looking very closely at impacts and how they are carried on throughout the round
• Just relax and have fun!!

I prefer a clear, evidenced-based debate. I won't tell you what to run because it's your round, but I will tell you I prefer traditional arguments. If you run ks, they need to be articulated with clear alts.

Use an email chain - include me (lizannwood@hotmail.com) on it, and be honest about the evidence. Paraphrasing is one of my biggest pet peeves. (Post-rounding and making me wait for endless evidence exchanges are the others).

Don't be rude or condescending. You can be authoritative while also being polite.

Speed: case-spreading is fine, esp if I have speech docs, but slow down in rebuttals.

Reasonability over competing interps.

Experience:

Mountain Brook Schools Director of Speech and Debate 2013 - current

Mountain Brook High School debate coach 2012-2013

Thompson High School policy debater 1991-1995

Qualifications/ Recognitions:

Authored 3 sets of lesson plans in the National Speech and Debate Association's series found here: https://www.speechanddebate.org/start-here/

Member - Emory University Gold Key Society

Please add me to the email chain:sgrobie@gmail.com

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. Because debaters are so familiar with the case, they often think many connections are obvious and go without saying. But for a judge to make the same connections, you need to spell them out. I'm trying to listen, flow, evaluate at the same time. Help me out.

-I find that nine out of ten times a PF debate could go either way. So don't just spew your evidence; tell me why it matters and why I should vote for you. Repeat your important points.

-Avoid spreading. I need to understand you.

-PLEASE do not waste time when calling for evidence; make it efficient.

-Be respectful of your opponents, have fun, and present your best self. I really dislike any kind of condescending behavior toward your opponent or your partner.