I use they/them pronouns, please feel free to disclose pronouns at the start of rounds and correct me if I mess up, I want to make sure everyone feels respected in round.

I don’t have a preference between truth and tech but be convincing and don’t lie or misconstrue evidence.

If you spread I will stop flowing until you stop spreading. I flow everything (except spreading and anything overtime) so signpost as often as possible or you may lose points. Weighing is extremely important, please weigh and make it clear you are weighing. Tell me how you want this round to be decided and stick with it. I pay attention and take notes during cross but nothing will be used in voting if it’s not brought into the round.

I don’t tolerate yelling, racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, Islamophobia, or any discriminatory remarks and you will be docked significantly if that happens.

If you're going to read an argument that could be triggering, read trigger warnings for the sake of both the judge and your opponent or you will lose speaker points.

I am not very versed in the complexities that LD can become so while I have debate experience in both PF and LD, treat me more like a lay judge when it comes to LD debates.

Remember, we are here to enjoy ourselves, being rude about wins or losses will not be tolerated.

*If you have any questions or want to disclose your case my email is adams.alastar@gmail.com*

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.

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?

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.

SOOOOOOO TRAD.

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.

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.

Good luck in today's debate! I am a veteran Lincoln-Douglas debater from Saint James School in Montgomery, where I debated locally and nationally in high school. I was excited about debate then and still am now! After I graduated college and law school I worked for a long time as an attorney and now serve as a federal judge. Free speech and advocacy are a big part of what makes our country special, and I am thrilled that you have chosen to invest your time and talents in civil discourse.

I'm a pretty traditional judge. You can trust that I'm completely unbiased (I maintain my impartiality as part of my everyday work life), and you should not expect to win my ballot if you're not a persuasive advocate. You'll have to speak clearly and make sure that I understand your argument before you can have any expectation that I'll accept it. Spread at your own risk. If your opponent spreads, think big thoughts about how you can slow the round down and still win. In this kind of debate, the gutsy debater with a few good arguments (or even only one) is often more effective than the fastest speaker with loads of weaker things to say. Proper decorum is a must - I'm completely confident that you can be effective without being rude. Stand up straight, make eye contact, and be your best self. Good luck!

UPDATE FOR ALABAMA STATE: I dont really have time to check my disclosure explanation that well. If youre confused, think it doesnt make sense, or are have any concerns, you can email me at jbmccleskey@crimson.ua.edu and I'll get back to you ASAP!

Debate Background

Debated Independently for Decatur Heritage, AL (2019)

• Args I used in high school: https://opencaselist.com/hsld18/DecaturHeritage/JuMc
• If the link does work, the 2018-2019 archive has my senior year args.

B.A. Political Science, UA (2021)

• Alabama Forensic Council and Alabama Debate Society Competitor
• Undergrad Thesis was on the role of Kritiks in the Debate Space

M.A. Public Administration, UA (2023)

• Occasionally coached and judged for Alabama Debate Society

Judging Habits

- Do whatever you want. I dont care if you stand, sit, lay across the desk or whatever in round. I should also be good with most speeds, but if I need you down I'll just keep saying slow until you're at a level I can flow.

- I've engaged well enough with most arguments to become familiar with them, but that doesn't mean you should avoid basic argument structures. I'm most versed on Ks, but that also means I have a decent threshold for them. I'll judge the round based on how you tell me I should :)

- If you're planning to spread, it would be significantly easier for me to flow if you could throw me on the email chain (jbmccleskey@crimson.ua.edu). I keep a decent flow but please don't assume I instantly know which card you're talking about unless you slightly explain it (or its a big factor in the round).

- I believe debate is a training field and an educational activity first-- it has a competitive nature as a game, but should remain ethical and truthful as an educational activity. Essentially, go for whatever route you're comfortable with, but be prepared to defend its utility. This activity can be really elitist and this a route to address it. Even paradigms that try to make this activity more accessible end up adding on jargon that benefits larger programs.

Looking to do Speech/Debate in college?

Let me know. UA has a team that competes in both speech and debate, and a separate organization focusing on providing debate resources and coaching to developing debate programs. Both of these have funding potential and are super accessible no matter your experience level. I can also connect you to some other programs (and just generally like talking about the different spheres of this activity on the collegiate level).

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.

Hello! I'm a veteran educator of world languages. I've taught at several schools throughout the East Coast and South at all levels (secondary and collegiate). I ask that you enunciate clearly and slow down. Please no spreading! Time yourself. Weigh your impact(s). Good luck today!

Hello!

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

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

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

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

--------

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

I am am open to most arguments, but I am unwilling to vote on arguments I don't understand enough to give a coherent RFD. The burden remains with the debater to make a sufficiently clear argument I 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.

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.