As the parent of 3 speech and debaters, I have judged for a total of 12 years. In deciding who wins a round I value communication and logic. A conversational speed of speech allows judges to understand your words and to process your ideas and your logic. Avoid jargon (both speech & debate jargon AND jargon that relates to the topic) and

Don't make your judge(s) work. Your logic should be front and center and clear; judges shouldn't have to look for it. I'm looking for a "red thread of logic". The other side of the debate will attempt to cut your thread of logic and you will attempt to knot those ends to reconnect your thread. Sometimes speech and debaters cut their own thread (not enunciating, speaking too quickly, swallowing taglines, using jargon and acronyms). Debaters, your responsibility is to present ideas and supporting evidence and to help me understand your case. It is not a judge's responsibility to "figure out" your case and logic (or lack thereof).

Off-time Road Maps: In Policy, yes, please provide one. In all other forms of debate, please do NOT. Quality debaters typically tend to work it seamlessly into their speeches.

Timing: Please time yourself and the others, which frees me to focus my energies on judging the debate.

Prep Time: Please request to use prep time. Time yourself and let me know either how much time you used or how much time you have remaining. I'll confirm that. This allows you to use prep time without someone interrupting you to tell you how much time you've used.

Policy Debaters: While I have judged policy and am a competent judge; however, I am not a confident policy judge. Competent, yes; confident, no. When using policy jargon, I find it helpful to be reminded to what it refers. I do NOT consult evidence you provide via email or some such. I judge solely on the evidence you state in speeches and then only to the extent I comprehend your words and process your ideas. After all, I can't judge based on what I do not understand.)

I have been coaching debate, speech, interp, and congress since 2011. I am pretty open to most types of debate, but I have some specific requirements for the individual debates and overall.

All Debates

Flow: I am generally a flow judge unless the event dictates otherwise. For PF, LD, and CX I will decide my win based on my flow.

Speed: I am fine with speed. That being said, I do expect to understand your SPEECH while you are giving it. If your speed causes you to slur words, not be understandable, or go too fast to make the round enjoyable, I will take off speaker points.

Courtesy: I expect a level of courtesy from all debaters at all times. If you ask a question, let your opponent answer. I also expect those answering questions to not waste time and answer with that in mind. Any form of discrimination WILL NOT BE TOLERATED in argumentation or remarks to one another. I will give you the loss and report you to tab if you make sexist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, ableist, or any other sort of discriminatory remarks. Additionally, I expect you to treat your opponents with respect. Calling them "liars" or implying or saying they are a worse debater than you is not a way to get on my good side.

Abusive Debate: I am a pretty intelligent lady, so I expect you to refrain from telling me what is on the ballot and follow what is on the ballot in the round----you should win with your arguments, not weaponizing rules. Focus on the debate, not reading to me what the ballot says. I can entertain some theory debate, but if you spend the whole round on that and not debating the topic at hand (or actively K'ing it effectively), you've lost me. Calling your opponent abusive without providing substantial support won't win you anything in my book, but remember, you should be able to win on the merits of the debate itself.

Weighing: I appreciate the active weighing of impacts in rounds; however, I do not immediately jump to a nuclear war impact or extinction impact without CLEAR LINKS that the resolution will make that happen. We live in a world where those things are possible by just walking outside, so I need to see the WHY of these arguments specific to the debate itself. Weighing only works if there are links to those impacts.

Tech/Truth: I will be honest- I am more of a "truth" person. I believe in discussing real-world issues in the round. However, I appreciate tech arguments as long as they fit within the confines of the debate.

Evidence: Clipping or misconstruing evidence will earn you a loss.

Specific Debates

Public Forum: I expect good speaking in public forum and accessibility to what you are saying. Public Forum needs to be as much about analysis and rhetoric as it is about evidence. Do not run plans in Public Forum.

Lincoln-Douglas: I do expect some framework debate, and I do not think LD is a one-person policy round. There needs to be active engagement with the opposing side. I am not a HUGE fan of plans/counterplans in LD, but K’s are fine.

Policy: I am pretty much down for anything, but I expect you to engage with the opposing side. I am likely to vote on T, especially if a plan or counterplan is abusive. All that said, CX should still be organized and involve good speaking skills.

Big Questions and World Schools- I expect these to be respectful debates that resemble a conversation about the topic rather than an attack on your opponent.

World Schools (specifically)- In World Schools, this should look like World Schools- NOT POLICY. I will not entertain spreading, over-sourcing, or not using good style, strategy, etc. For prepared motions, I also will not entertain abusive debate that is so limited it is impossible to prepare for before the tournament. Do Policy if you like Policy that much.

A really quick rundown:

I'm an old-school policy and values debater, impromptu speaker, and comfortable with any events in flight A or B...I've seen and heard a lot, and I know what's possible at the championship level. I also know what your coaches and schools expect with regard to how you represent them...so represent well.

Debate and Forum and all that jazz: I expect clean and respectful competition. I value everyone's time; make sure that you use yours well, respect your opponent's, and don't waste mine. Wastes of my time include but aren't limited to

-speech so fast that no one can keep up

-vapor arguments with no substance/evidence

-improperly contextualized evidence

-racism, sexism, homophobia, and all other manner of linguistic human abuse on my flow. Our hypothetical people might die, but let's respect their humanity.

Have fun, be smart, speak well, and do your best. I'll do my best to keep up.

Interp and Speaking Events: Show me what you've got. I can't wait to see you shine.

I coach IPDA debate (an extemporaneous form of debate) at the college level and actively assist with LD and PF at the high school level. I'm also a non-practicing lawyer who works in legal/regulatory compliance, for what that's worth.

In terms of experience, a good summary would be: I'm capable of handling most technical, "progressive" and/or esoteric aspects of debate, but I really don't think I should have to. It's almost always possible to make even the most novel arguments in a way that is understandable and logically accessible to a reasonably educated non-specialist. And while I probably can understand your terminology or theory, I tend to reward debaters who don't need it.

A few specific things to keep in mind with me:

I vote based on complete arguments. That means claim, warrant, impact, and reason for decision. I probably know what you're trying to say, but can't ethically fill in the gaps for you. So please --if that card really is the killer you think it is-- walk me through why it wins the round for you.

I'm not crazy about speed. I won't say it can never add value. But 80-90% of the time that it's deployed in high school, its principal function is to obscure lazy reasoning or the lack of solid evidence, as opposed to fitting in more useful info. Again, debate is more than tag lines, and I'm not going to pretend that I can understand the particulars of a piece of evidence read at 300 wpm. So if you use speed like that, you assume the risk that I'll miss an essential part of your logical syllogism

On a related note, I'm very unlikely to read your case or cards. If you want to create a competition where people pass papers back and forth to make arguments, that might be an interesting game to play. But the essence of this competition --i.e., debating-- is orally delivering an argument to listeners. There's no reason to have oral delivery unless part of the game is encapsulating information in a way that a listener can process and evaluate. So I will generally decline to read cases or cards unless there is a specific, credible allegation of dishonesty.

I have no objection to theory or kritiks per se, but you're not entitled to tabula rasa judging on these kinds of arguments. That is, if your argument is truly a priori --i.e., it takes precedence over the resolution itself-- then you're no longer operating within the protective shell of imaginary judge fiat, where I can comfortably ignore what I know. Instead, you're asking me to take some stand relating to morality, ethics, fairness, etc., because of some ostensible impact on the real world. I can't ethically take "real world" actions while deliberately ignoring my own relevant knowledge. So full disclosure: if you take the debate outside the resolution, you assume the risk that I'll vote against you based on things that were not said in the round.

Be respectful. I know some tension is inherent in the activity, so I'll give a certain measure of leeway. But I'll happily give you the loss for gratuitous rudeness, mockery, etc.

My judging paradigm is very simple. I believe the purpose of debate is to teach competitors to think critically and communicate effectively. Evidence is only important if a competitor can tell me why it's important. It is imperative for the competitor to demonstrate a true understanding of the arguments they are making. To that end, I think spreading should be avoided when possible, but I am fine with some speed.

I like to see clear clash and persuasive argumentation. Assertiveness is good, rudeness is completely uncalled for and may cost a competitor the round if it is pervasive enough. Further, competitors should be respectful and deferential to judges regardless of the judge's experience.

Debaters should come prepared for technology catastrophes. Bring paper copies, USB storage devices, and contingency plans. I flow when I judge, so I only take things into consideration that are said in the actual debate. If you are spreading to the point that your words are unintelligible, I will put my pen down. If that happens, you will not be getting credit for anything you say until you can be understood enough for me to resume flowing.

Feel free to email me prior to if you have any questions.

Include me on email chains - Laura.Hosman5@gmail.com

Background

I currently coach LD and CX at Denver East. I competed in LD back in the early 2000s, and have been coaching since I graduated from HS in 2004. Most of my coaching as been part time as I'm a perpetual student/grad student. I'm currently working on my PhD in IR at the University of Denver. Prior, I attended law school and completed my JD in 2013. My current research interests focus broadly on judicial defection under non-democracies, International Human Rights Law, and the impact of transitional justice on democratization (https://www.du.edu/korbel/sie/people/research_assistants.html). Feel free to talk to me about law school versus grad school - I'm friendly :)

Since I've been coaching for almost 14 years now, but part time, I'm good with national circuit trends and topic substance despite a low judging record. Where it hurts me is with spreading - I'm good with a fast rate of speed, but I'm not where I should be with proper spreading. As long as you flash me or email me your stuff, and slow down on tags and analytics, and you're clear, I'm fine. If I miss any cards I'll just ask.

On staff at SJDI this summer -- https://camp.thesjdi.org/instructors/

Logistics

Flashing/Emailing is not prep - just keep it reasonable. I prefer email chains.

Flex prep is fine - that's up to the debaters as far as I'm concerned

For CX - open cross is fine; again, that's up to the debaters as far as I'm concerned

Overall

I lean strongly towards an offense-defense paradigm - You can concede FW and I'll still vote for you so long as your impacts outweigh. Just make sure when you kick FW its strategic - otherwise why are you running that FW in the first place. Subsequently, I'm not a huge fan of terminal defensive - link turns and perms are good so long as the impacts outweigh and there are some grounds for uniqueness.

I don't vote on presumption - the negative should at least have some net positive impacts from the SQ that outweigh. If I do vote on presumption, it was a bad round.

I'm a pretty progressive judge, so I love a good K, including [performance] aff Ks. But I'll hold you to a higher standard - if you access your solvency via deconstruction of the round itself, your method of doing so better be consistent with your theoretical FW. Fiat is merely a tool through which we can debate empirical impacts as a basis for that which we ought to do, rather than debating the likelihood of occurrence. So if you're running something pre-fiat, you no longer have the luxury of severing theory from method. On neg Ks, just make sure there's a link that's clear and specific, and you have an alt. If you do that you're probably fine. I'm significantly more likely to vote for your K if you have an alt.

Dropped arguments only matter if there's an impact - so again, be strategic and focus on the warrant + impact. In general try not to drop arguments though.

I favor conditionality, just explain [in brief] why kicking the CP, K, or whatever doesn't impact your offense.

DAs - links and impacts generally matter more than uniqueness, but don't ignore uniqueness if there's a CP/Perm

Counterplans are good, just make sure it competes with the plan (think opportunity cost model here).

Debate Theory/ROB - I've never once been persuaded by debate theory. Feels like most folks run debate theory out of habit and because they have the blocks, not because they mean it or even hope to win on it. And folks tend to sound like they are whining by defaulting to theory cause they don't have cards prepped out. But if you can argue it well I might be persuaded by it - especially if something in round is egregious enough to warrant rejection on such grounds (guess I'm yet to see something so egregious). In general, though, I'd rather just see debaters debate substance. I'm more inclined to favor the educational value that comes from debating whatever is offered in round, especially in light of current disclosure norms.

Disclosure Theory - I'm yet to have this be an issue in round, so I can't say definitely how I would vote if someone ran disclosure theory against their opponent. But I've been in this community a decent amount of time, and I've seen the net positive benefits of disclosing on competitive debate. So I strongly support disclosing and am apt to vote accordingly. Granted, I'd rather just vote on the substance of whatever is offered in round if I can, so I wouldn't spend much time on this (esp if its clearly a kid from a i.e. small program without a lot of resources - the net effect at that point is to just be exclusionary and keep kids out of the community).

Theory is not an RVI.

I default to competing interps.

I like T debates, but rarely find myself voting for it - probably because folks don't argue it well and don't impact it. Explain to me why I should pref your definition and why the distinction matters - the distinction should be fundamental and substantial to the resolution/debate/evidence, so don't just run debate theory as the basis for preferring your interp (i.e. studies on democratization are largely dependent on how you define "democracy," with findings determined by quantity versus quality operationalizations of democracy -- so you could link/impact turn the entire 1AC with an alternative definition of democracy). Generally, I'm more inclined to favor the educational value of debating whatever is offered in round and not vote on T.

I'm not a fan of spikes, so I wouldn't go for that strategy. I do see debate as a game, but it should be one with integrity and I see spikes as diminishing the integrity of the game.

Lastly, be nice and respectful, esp in cross. I have a really high threshold for what I consider to be "too aggressive," so rarely do I ever think debaters have crossed the line so to speak. But, i.e. do give your opponents an opportunity to answer during cross.

Speaks - I generally range from 27 to 30. My average is probably somewhere around a 28.5 (I wouldn't be surprised if I'm more generous than others with speaks). If you get above a 29, I think you should be in elim rounds. If you get below a 28, something about your behavior in round bothered me (it probably had to do with cross, and I've only given below a 28 once). If its borderline, I'll probably just give you a flat 29.

For traditional LD, the logic of all of the above applies - I need an impact calc under your value-criterion FW. You can concede your value and still win on impact calc.

Make sure I can understand you; don't speak too fast!
Above all, be respectful to each other!

Hello, I’m Khalil Jackson! In high school, I mainly competed in Congressional Debate but have some experience in all debate events. This paradigm applies to all debates.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Keep me in the loop on file sharing (kjspeechanddebate@gmail.com), and make your subject lines specific. I will only flow what I comprehend in round, but I will go through the files if I was thrown off track or need to double-check something.

I am not not too good with speed, especially being so far removed from debate. So, try to maintain a relatively normal speaking pace, if possible. If you want to speed up, we can try it out. I will be forgiving when it comes to clarity and will notify you of it as often as it takes. When signposting, let me know which arguments are especially important and weigh it when you get there. Fewer, more-developed arguments are preferred.

I am more than willing to listen to any arguments or approaches to your side of the resolution. However, assume that I am not familiar with the literature or your arguments. You need to be intentional about what you say and how you tie it together. So, I will not piece together what went unsaid, and I will not vote for you if your arguments are unclear.

I am generally substance over procedure, truth over tech, but that is not a hard and fast rule. I am willing to vote for anything that is well-explained.

I have a habit of giving non-verbal cues, but do not mistake them as an indication that I agree with you. They only indicate that I understand the point you are trying to make, not necessarily that I buy what you are saying.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Here are some of the ways you can lose the round immediately:

- Being deceitful by clipping cards, falsifying evidence or any number of shady things

- Being rude or disrespectful to me or anyone else

- Being racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. in any way shape or form

I try not to intervene but will do so if I am invited to, like being asked to read evidence or if I feel that bad behavior is taking place.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Feel free to let me know if you have any questions or concerns before round!

As a judge, I begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. That means I am ok with generally fast speeches, along with counter-plans, disadvantages, and kritiks. When it comes to speaking fast, just me a roadmap before every speech about which arguments you are addressing. When addressing kritiks, I don't care what types of kritiks you use. I just will evaluate based on which team has argued what makes the kritik revelant and why does the kritik give ground to vote in the aff or neg. I prefer if debaters respond to arguments in the order they were presented. Don't overcomplicate points or key arguments. To keep overcomplication to a minimum, clear signposting is greatly appreciated. Regarding the substance of your argument, the most important is the warrants/evidence. The heavy impacts cannot occur if you can clearly argue what triggers them.

On T: I am pretty lenient when it comes to whether a plan/counterplan is topical or not. My standard for determining this is whether or not the plan fits in what I conceive as the "spirit of the resolution." Something may not be strictly topical as per the verbiage of the resolution, but is still topical as it fits the resolution's intended spirit as written. The only times I will flatly reject a plan on topicality is (1) if it is too large in scope, as to encompass the resolution rather than the other way around, or (2) it is so disconnected from the topic that it may as well be a non-sequitur. As an additional note, please don't waste time making a bunch of topicality arguments. It is often time-consuming.

-K's are most commonly a cheap trick, in my view--I know that they're used topic to topic and round to round with little change, as a means to minimize exhaustive prep and real engagement with the topic. The only exception I'll give is to specific instances of abolition/discourse K's, in which you argue (in good faith, I'll be able to tell) that the verbiage or framing of the resolution overly limits available/acceptable discourse. Regardless, don't anticipate a vote in a K's favor. You signed up for this tournament, you know what the topic is: debate it.

CP- just be topical if a counterplan isnt topical. I'm not going to rely on the CP for a vote.

I am a new coach to speech and debate, and thus new to judging.

I am a Spanish teacher and have spent time in several Spanish speaking countries (Mexico, Colombia, Spain, Costa Rica).

Debate: Always cite your evidence, and be prepared to provide evidence when making bold arguments. I am not a fan of "combative" debate, i.e. raising your voice, declaring that the other side is blatantly mistaken, etc. I put extra emphasis on cross-examination and each side's ability to offer up challenging questions and quick/creative responses.

Speech: I love a good flourish with your hands, but too much so, or for no apparent reason. Even if your piece is "dark" in tone, your tone/pitch should still change at points during your presentation. Talking too fast? I get lost! Slow and deliberate speaking speed is more my flavor.

EYE CONTACT WITH YOUR JUDGE

I am the Director of Forensics and an Assistant Professor of Speech Communication in the Department of Writing & Rhetoric at the University of Mississippi. I have a PhD and MA in Communication Studies from the University of Kansas.

I currently coach British Parliamentary debate but my background is in policy debate.

From 2014 to 2021 I was an assistant coach at the University of Kansas.

I competed at Wayne State University from 2009 to 2014.

I debated in high school for Dexter High School in Michigan.

Put me on the email chain, please. jacob.justice.debate at gmail.

Regardless of format (policy, PF, LD, BP, etc.) or style (policy, critique, etc.) I want to see complete and supported arguments, engagement with the arguments of your opponent, and judge instruction about how to prioritize and weigh various arguments.

The following stuff still applies.

*October 2020 Update*

This past Spring I finished up my PhD at the University of Kansas. I am now a public speaking instructor at Northeastern University in Boston, MA. I will be judging sporadically for Kansas during the 2020-2021 season.

What does this mean?

Don't assume I have high familiarity with the nitty-gritty of the current topic. I coached/judged on the high school military presence topic (2010-2011) and coached/judged extensively on the college military presence topic (2015-2016), so I am familiar with the broad strokes of the current college topic, but the latest and spiciest arguments and acronyms might be unfamiliar to me.

The Wayne State tournament will also be my first time judging an online tournament; although I did judge many online debates at the 2020 Jayhawk Debate Institute and have taught online many times as well. I just wanted to provide a fair warning that you can't rule out a "boomer technology moment" with me in the back of the room as I learn the ropes of this strange new world of online debating.

With these updates out of the way, I think everything below applies.

I always do my best to judge the debate in front of me without letting my own biases creep in. But I (or any other judge) would be lying if I told you I don't have certain preferences: these preferences are spelled out pretty well below.

One additional comment: I find that the most difficult rounds to resolve often involve debates that are occurring on two different registers. A 1AC with massive extinction impacts versus K links about knowledge production or ontology. Or a 1AC about anti-blackness or psychic violence versus a T argument about fairness/education. When debaters' impacts operate on such different levels, it can be difficult to resolve the debate without debaters explicitly telling me what types of impacts to prioritize.

*Previous Philosophy*

First things first:

1) Do what you're best at. As a judge, I should adapt to you and not the other way around.

2) Arguments should have a claim, warrant, and implication. Any argument that contains a claim, data (this doesn't mean carded), warrant and implication is fair game for my ballot.

3) A dropped argument is almost always a true argument. The most common exception is if the original argument did not include the requirements in #2, in which case I might give the team that dropped the arg some leeway in hedging against an entirely new warrant or implication. Tech creates "truth". What is "truth" is contingent on arguments made (and won). I often find myself voting for arguments that I disagree with or find silly when one side executes better.

4) This is a communication activity, so clarity is important to me. I like being able to hear the text of evidence as it is being read. Enunciate! Don't talk into your laptop or read like a robot.

General Notes:

Context always matters. Controlling the contextual framing almost always requires hard pre-round work, and usually wins the round. I value teams that demonstrate robust knowledge of their arguments and the topic.

Clash matters a lot to me. I'm not a good judge for teams whose strategy is built around avoiding a debate. This is true regardless of which side of the K/policy spectrum any given argument falls on.

Impact comparisons are critical, no matter what flavor of debate you engage in. Does negative flexibility outweigh 2AC strategy skew? Are the 1AC’s methodological assumptions a prior question to its pragmatic implications? Does a long term warming impact outweigh a quick nuclear war scenario? In a close round, the team that provides the clearest and most well-explained answer to questions like those usually wins my ballot.

In general, it is better to a develop a small number of arguments in an in-depth manner than to develop a large number of arguments in a shallow manner, although there are certainly exceptions to this rule. Selective rebuttals are typically the most effective. That being said, I recognize the strategic benefit of the 1AR pursuing a handful of lines of argument to give the 2AR flexibility to pick-and-choose.

After judging a year of college debates, I think my biggest pet peeve is vagueness -- be that a vague plan, vague CP, or vague alt. Being clear and detailed is helpful to me as a judge.

Framework:

See: my previous thoughts about clash.

Teams should defend an example of the resolution. I don't think being topical is an unreasonable expectation when the resolution does not force you to take a conservative or repugnant action (i.e., when legalizing pot or closing military bases is topical). I think fairness is an impact and will vote on it if articulated and debated well.

When answering T with a "K Aff," I think it is important for the AFF team to advance a limiting counter-interpretation of some kind. I am more likely to be persuaded by "we don't make the topic unworkably large" than "destroying debate good."

It is important for affirmatives to demonstrate that their advocacy is germane to the controversy of the resolution and contestable. Affirmatives should explain what type of ground they make available to the negative, and not just by referring to random author names. In other words, it's much more helpful when the affirmative frames the ground debate in terms of: "our affirmative relies on *X* assumption, which *Y* literature base writes evidence refuting" rather than just saying "you can read Baudrillard, Bataille, etc."

Teams should articulate a clear vision of what debate would look like under their interpretation. Ideally, teams should present a clear answer to questions like: "what is the purpose of debate?" Is it a game? A site for activism? Somewhere in between?

I don't think reading topicality is a means to evade clash with the substance of an affirmative -- in many instances it calls core assumptions of the affirmative into question.

Interacting with your opponents' argument is critical. It's important to isolate a clear impact to your argument and explain how it accesses/turns your opponents. Often times I find these debates to be irreconcilable because the arguments advanced by either side have disparate premises. It can be helpful to not conflate procedural justifications for topicality with normative ones, though the internal links to these things often become messy.

I am disinclined to view debate as a role-playing exercise.

Topicality:

I will definitely vote on it, and I have done so often. I am not a good judge for "should = past tense of shall", "reduce =/= eliminate" and other contrived interpretations negatives read against obviously topical affs. For instance, it will be difficult to convince me that an affirmative which removes the Cuban embargo is untopical, absent a massive technical error. That being said I am willing to vote on T, given that an interpretation, violation, standards, and voters are well articulated. Affirmatives should always make and extend a counter-interpretation.

Theory –

It will be tough to persuade me that two conditional advocacies is egregious and unmanageable for the 2AC. Beyond two conditional advocacies is pushing your luck if you are the negative team, especially with multiple "kickable" planks involved.

Basically every other theoretical objection is a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

I haven't formed a solid opinion on "judge kicking" CPs, but since the aff has the burden of proof in most theory debates, I think I am comfortable putting the burden on the aff to prove why the 2NR can't simultaneously go for a CP and the SQ.

-Consult/Condition/Delay CPs – I tend to consider these types of CPs uncompetitive, and am thus receptive to perm arguments. That being said, there is a big difference in my mind between “Consult Japan on the plan” and well-evidenced CP’s that are comparative between doing the plan unconditionally, and using the plan as leverage. The latter brand of condition CP’s are few and far between.

Critiques:

Given my disposition to view things within a cost-benefit paradigm, I am likely to frame the critique as a disad / counterplan. This basic calculus will be different based upon the framework arguments advanced by the negative regarding ontology, epistemology, method, etc.

When indicting an affirmative's knowledge production or epistemology is imperative that you reference quotes or phrases from the 1AC which you think are flawed. It is also imperative that affirmatives defend the truth value of their 1AC's claims from these types of epistemological attacks.

I feel most comfortable in K rounds that involve a lot of interaction with the plan, the advantages, or explicit 1AC claims. There should be a coherent link, impact, and alternative. Don't assume I know what you are talking about.

Affs are best answering the K at the alt and impact level as the neg will almost certainly win a link. Articulating why the alt doesn't solve the case and why the case outweighs the K impacts is usually the best strategy. I am also a fan of the impact turn.

K links should ideally establish that the 1AC/plan is undesirable, not merely that it doesn't account for every foreseeable harm. I.E. links that say: "the plan makes racism worse" are more persuasive than "the plan does not address other instances of racism."

Updated February 2023

Caveat: This is my perception of what I think I do. Those who have had me in the back of the room may have different views.

The TL;DR version (applies to all forms of debate).

1. The resolution is pretty important. Advocate for or against it and you get a lot of leeway on method. Ignore it at your peril.

2. Default policymaker/CBA unless the resolution screams otherwise or you give me a well-reasoned argument for another approach.

3. “Roles of the ballot” or frameworks that are not reasonably accessible (doesn't have to be 50-50, but reasonable) to both sides in the debate run the risk of being summarily thrown out.

4. Share me to the speech doc (maierd@gosaints.org) but I’m only flowing what you intelligibly say in the debate. If I didn’t flow it, you didn’t say it.

5. Fairness and reciprocity are a good starting point for evaluating theory/topicality, etc. Agnostic on tech v. truth debate. These are defaults and can be overcome.

6. Rudeness, rules-lawyering, clipping, falsifying evidence and other forms of chicanery all make me unhappy. Making me unhappy reduces your speaker points. If I’m unhappy enough, you might be catching an L.

The longer version (for all forms of debate)

The Resolution: Full disclosure – I have been a delegate to the NFHS Debate Topic Selection Meeting since 2011 (all years for Mississippi except 2022 when I voted on behalf of NCFL) and was on the Wording Committee from 2018-2020, the last of those years as chair. There’s a lot of work that goes into crafting resolutions and since you’re coming here by choice, it should be respected. Advocate for or against the resolution and I’ll give you a pretty wide degree of latitude on method. If you’re just going to ignore the resolution, the bar is pretty low for your opponent to clear to get the W (though I have seen teams bungle this).

File Sharing and Speed – Yes please, but understand I’m only flowing that which comes out of your mouth that I can understand – I don’t flow as fast in my mid-50s as I did even in my 40s. I only go to the speech doc if a) I lost concentration during the speech through no fault of your own, b) I need to read evidence because there is a dispute about what the evidence says, or c) I want to steal the evidence for a future round. If you bust out ten blips in fifteen seconds, half of them aren’t making the flow. Getting it on my flow is your job and I have no problem saying “you didn’t say that in a way that was flowable”.

Arguments: Arguments grounded in history, political science, and economics are the ones I understand the best – that can cut both ways. So while I understand K’s like Cap, CRT, and Intersectionality, I have a harder time with those that are based on some Continental European whose name ends with four vowels in a row who says that not adopting their method risks all value to life. Your job is to put me in a position to be able to make the other team understand why they lost, even if they disagree with the decision. If you don’t do the work, I’m not doing it for you. Regarding “framework” or “role of the ballot” arguments – if what you’re advocating isn’t at least reasonably accessible to both teams, I reserve the right to ignore it.

Deciding Rounds – I try to decide the round in the least interventionist way possible – I’ll leave it to others to hash out whether I succeed at that. I’m willing to work slightly harder to adjudicate the round than you do to advocate in the round (basically, if neither debater does the work and the round’s a mess, I’m going to look for the first thing I can embrace to get out of the round). If you ask me to read evidence, especially your evidence, you’ve given me a tacit invitation to intervene.

Point Scale – Because I judge on a few different circuits that each have different scales, saying X equals a 28.5 isn’t helpful. I use the scale I’m asked to use to the best of my ability.

Things that will cost you speaker points/the round:

1. Rudeness – Definitely will hurt your speaks. If it’s bad enough, I’ll look for a reason to vote you down or just decide I like to make rude people mad and give you the L just so I can see you get hacked off.

2. Gratuitous profanity – Saying “damn” or “hell” or “the plan will piss off X” in a frantic 1AR is no biggie. Six f-bombs in a forty second span is a different story.

3. Racist/sexist/homophobic language or behavior – If I’m sure about what I saw or heard and it’s bad enough, I’ll act on it unilaterally.

4. Falsifying evidence/clipping cards/deliberate misrepresentation of evidence – Again, if I’m sure about this and that it’s deliberate, I’ll act on my own.

5. Rules-lawyering – Debate has very few rules, so unless it’s written down somewhere, rules-lawyering is likely to only make me mad. An impacted theory objection might be a different story.

Lincoln-Douglas Observations

1. Way too much time on framework debates without applying the framework to the resolution question. I’m not doing this work for you.

2. The event is generally in an identity crisis, with some adhering to the Value Premise/Criterion model and others treating it like 1 on 1 policy, some with really shallow arguments. I’m fine with either, but starting the NC with five off and then collapsing to one in the NR is going to make me give 2AR a lot of leeway (maybe even new argument leeway) against extrapolations not specifically in the NC.

3. Too many NR’s and 2AR’s are focused on not losing and not on winning. Plant your flag somewhere, tell me why you’re winning those arguments and why they’re the key to the round.

Public Forum Specific Observations

1. Why we ever thought paraphrasing was a good idea is absolutely beyond me. In a debate that isn’t a mismatch, I’m generally going to prefer those who read actual evidence over those who say “my 100 page report says X” and then challenge the other team to prove them wrong in less than a handful of minutes of prep time. Make of that what you will.

2. I’ve never seen a Grand Crossfire that actually advanced a debate.

3. Another frustration I have with PF is that issues are rarely discussed to the depth needed to resolve them fully. This is more due to the structure of the round than debaters themselves. To that end, if you have some really wonky argument, it’s on you to develop your argument to where it’s a viable reason to vote. I will lose no sleep over saying to you “You lost because you didn’t do enough to make me understand your argument.”

4. Right now, PF doesn’t seem sure of what it wants to be – some of this is due to the variety of resolutions, but also what seems like the migration of ex-debaters and coaches into the judging pool at the expense of lay judges, which was supposed to be the idea behind PF to begin with.

5. As with LD, too many Final Focuses are focused on not losing instead of articulating a rationale for why a team is winning the debate.

I'm just a judge.

Email contact: jrr289@msstate.edu - please add me to any email chains being used in the round

Background: I competed in speech and debate for three years in high school. I primarily participated in public forum debate and international and domestic extemporaneous speaking, but I occasionally competed in LD, congress, and various other limited prep speech events. I attended the NSDA tournament twice in international extemporaneous speaking. I competed at the CFL National tournament three times: once in extemporaneous speaking, once in public forum, and once in congress. I have stayed active in speech and debate by judging a few tournaments a year and helping coach public forum debate teams on the high school level.

Speeches and case organization

I have a fundamental aversion to jargon and unexplained abbreviations or acronyms in debate. Explain and define everything.

The best constructive speeches contain at least some background information on the resolution. Many teams overlook this, perhaps due to time constraints, but this is a critical step. In other words, you need to answer this question up front: how have we arrived at the topic before us?

Organized speeches with clear signposting are an absolute must. Evidence is obviously important, but I will pay special attention to how it is woven throughout your speeches. Are you making it clear why this evidence is important? Why I should trust it? What is its impact? Do you have multiple levels of evidence to support every argument you plan on making?

Crossfire

I will pay attention to everything said during crossfire. While a debate may not be won solely by the crossfire performance, it can quickly be lost. A great debater is one who does not lose their persuasiveness even when they have to think fast on their feet. You should be able to defend all your arguments and evidence without hesitation during crossfire. What I believe to be an extremely effective communication strategy during crossfire that you may want to consider is not forgetting to make eye contact and speak to the judge. Do not limit your focus during crossfire to your opponent or your papers in front of you. Engaging me in crossfire and making me feel included will absolutely earn you some extra speaker points.

Miscellaneous

I will flow each debate carefully, but I do not consider myself a technical judge. You are free to run whatever arguments or strategies you choose; if you can sell it well, I will probably buy it. At the end of the round, my decision is usually for the team who wows me the most. Sometimes that is the team who I think wins the most number of arguments. Sometimes that is the team who wins the strongest arguments. Sometimes it is the team that had the best delivery and persuasiveness.

Please feel free to contact me via email if you have any questions.

Hello! I am Jharick Shields. I am a speech and debate coach at St. Andrew's Episcopal School. I have been coaching for about 20 years and have coached debaters into late elimination rounds in a number of national circuit and NSDA/NCFL tournaments. I have also been fortunate to watch them win a few. Debate allows us the ability to critique the world and to substantively engage with those criticisms. It is a forum in which we communicate those ideas. How you communicate in front of me will directly correlate to the ballot I write. I am truth with tech. I think that you should be able to create a cohesive ballot story while also understanding the fundamentals of LD argumentation. You need to show me that you are reading the sources you are citing. You need to prove that you understand the context behind the arguments you run. You should engage with the arguments of your opponent. Is T engagement with an aff that is nontopical? I would say yes. However, the debater that will earn higher speaks from me will also critically think and engage the affirmative.

Speed is an part of the game of debate. Judge adaptation is also part of the game. I have no problem saying that I missed something on my flow. If the argument is super important, signpost and weigh it. Don't assume that an extension through ink is enough for me to pull the trigger. A lot of times in great debates, amazing weighing tends to win out on cold concessions. Great debaters explain why the argument was conceded. I think that the best debaters figure that out, and close the door on them. I prefer few, well developed arguments to many. However, its your world. I tend to get excited when I am asked to bring out a lot of paper. Just don't assume I got everything you said if you aren't utilizing good communication skills.

I am an old fashioned policy kid, who was fortunate enough to do LD as well. Policy arguments are my heart. I like great plan texts, plan flaws are a thing, CPs with net benefits, strong case debates, Ks(bonus for Ks with policy alts). If thats what you do, I am a really good judge in those rounds. You still have obligations to communicate...

If you are a traditional debater, I still have plenty of love to share. Some of the best rounds I have seen on the national circuit are kids reading a traditional aff. I watch as their opponent gets ready to run 5 off and case. The 1ar gets up, extends their conceded criterion/case evidence, no links the DAs/Ks, perms the CP/Alt and sits down. And maybe the debater doesn't use those terms, but if you make the argument clearly and labeled, I will bridge the educational gap in debate jargon. I am also a very good judge for you.

If you caught me during high school, maybe I could have gotten into tricks/skep stuff. Basically, I can evaluate it, and if both debaters are going down that road together, I won't be as upset going there. I think HEAVY weighing is the only way that I won't gut check for anything else in that debate. Maybe not the best for you, but maybe you just need a somewhat tech judge in a small pool then I am good.

Honestly, I just am really excited to see debates. Run what you want, be respectful, have fun! If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me prior to the round.

For MS Local Touraments:

Everything above applies. There are some things that students do in front of me that don't really help them win the ballot. Here are a few:

1.) Rules Lawyering: I get it, you want to show the judge that you know more about LD or at the very least have a lot of ethos. I must say, through my experience, these cases only end up with that debater losing some ethos. Telling me that something is an NSDA rule when we abide by MSHAA rules is sort of a bad argument. Telling me that a student must have a value, can't run a plan/CP, can't have a criterion, etc is just wrong. In theory, a student can run a case with just 1 contention and nothing else and it is fine. They don't lose the debate, they aren't disqualified, they live to debate another round. Win on the flow.

2.) New arguments: I don't flow these. If the new argument transcends the debate: a student has done something harmful in round, then its fine(but I will most likely intervene, since that is my duty). New evidence that supports arguments already made are fair game. A lot of debaters think that new evidence is the same as a new argument. It isn't.

3.) Mismanaging Drops: Debaters will tell me that an argument was dropped, but it wasn't. They will tell me that they have responded to an argument. They have not. Make sure that you are flowing. After the round, if you show me a quality flow of the debate(and if I have them on me). I will give you a candy/treat or something.

Okay, thanks!!

Jude Sims-Barber, as featured on https://www.change.org/p/keep-the-public-in-public-forum?source_location=search

Hello debaters! I’m a university student studying philosophy and sociology, and was a debater throughout high school for three years. My main proficiency was with Lincoln-Douglas debate and Congressional debate but I am very familiar with Public Forum, Policy, and IDPA debate (and, to a lesser extent, British Parliament and World Schools Debate).

I use any and all pronouns and my email is njudesims@gmail.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: I have minor hearing loss. My inner ear tissue is scarred and my speech perception is affected as a result. This is not an issue of volume, it is an issue of clarity and enunciation. As a result, I cannot understand spreading. It is simply out of my ear's reach. And before you ask, no, you don't magically have the perfectly understandable spreading cadence.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Notes (please read):

Debate is educational first and foremost. Yes, it is competitive (a "game"), but you should always debate in good faith and not use cheap arguments or tricks just to win. Try to understand your opponent and their arguments, and try to make the debate reach a point of conclusion rather than simply making cheap dunks or disingenuous attacks. Communication relies on mutual trust and a desire to learn, not a desire to dominate or win.

Truth over tech. Techy truth is generally fine. I will not disclose. I don't have time to argue with high schoolers about why they lost.

While I understand the desire to make as many arguments as possible, the default should be using an ordinary, pedestrian speed to communicate well-researched ideas. Do not be disingenuous, either in the arguments you choose to run (knowing that they're designed or cut in a manner to disorient your opponent) or the way you explain/extend them.

-Stay topical. You chose to come to this tournament, you paid the entry fee, you know the topic. It's different when academics decide to discuss the weaknesses of our discourse models or the symbolic violence inherent in... English syntax. You aren't an academic, you're a high schooler competing in a competitive tournament you voluntarily signed up for--debate what the resolution says.

Time limits exist as a statement of how long the statements you need to make should take. They are not an excuse to cram as much stuff into that time by spreading.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Lincoln-Douglas:

-Keep it traditional. The most engaging LD debates are those that speak in concrete terms about abstract ideas, using what we examine on a surface level (mere political issues) and revealing hidden moral assumptions or frameworks (theory).

-Is is not ought. Merely because something is the case in the real world says nothing about whether such a thing is morally justified. No, you don't have the solution to the is-ought gap.

-You must have a Value and Criterion. Lincoln Douglas is all about framing topics with an ethical framework. When we say that something is moral or immoral, we must do so with an ethical framework (i.e., consequentialism, deontology, etc.). A value of Morality is meaningless, as the purpose of LD is to normatively prescribe a special importance to a particular value or good (it tells me nothing as a judge if you value morality. You might as well say "it is good to do good things and bad to do bad things").

-Ethical theories are not values. You cannot 'value' utilitarianism--it is an ethical framework through which we quantify or evaluate that which we hold important. We can examine the utility of 'positive freedom' as a value, but we cannot simply value utilitarianism.

-Avoid criteria that are bulkily worded ("ensuring healthcare access" or something similar). Try to limit criteria to established philosophies, ideas, methods, or theories.

-I highly value philosophical consistency and a solid understanding of the philosophical ideas and ethical theories argued for. I know judge intervention is frowned upon, but if you misrepresent a philosophical position or idea, it will be hard for me to trust your proclaimed level of expertise on the topic. Simple mistakes are perfectly okay, as a lot of philosophy is rather impenetrable.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Public Forum:

-PF is not policy. You used to be prohibited from citing evidence in PF until after Ted Turner sponsored it. PF is the lay debate in high school circuits. Keep it simple. To clarify, I do expect you to use evidence, but also your own proficiency for debate.

-If you know a piece of evidence is deeply flawed or even wrong, why run it on the chance that your opponent won't know how to respond? Does that not seem disingenuous to you?

-I'm primarily a flow judge, and I care deeply about clear statements of arguments and rebuttals. If you don't signpost, I'll likely miss it. Tech mainly bores me, so do try to make quality arguments--if you make bad arguments, then I won't prefer them solely because the opposing team couldn't mention the sixth drop of the fourth subpoint in a three minute speech. If the argument is bad, then it's bad--simple as. (By bad, I mean poorly explained, incoherent, frivolous, or cheap.) Drops are only a point in your favor insofar as the dropped argument is actually substantial to the overall debate.

-Focus on broader impacts. Remember that the burden of the CON is not to propose any comprehensive plan of action, merely demonstrate why the PRO is ineffective or harmful.

-Do not spend too much time on one specific point with one specific point of evidence. Give weight to what's important. Collapse by the end. The earlier, the better.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Big Questions:

-Big questions is a descriptive debate, which means that you are debating on what is (descriptive) rather than what ought be the case (normative). What this means is that you are, on aff or neg, answering the big question at hand. What's more, big questions require big answers, and any reasonably big answer contains quite a lot of philosophy. Your case should include some measure of balance between raw theoretical material (philosophy, broadly) and hard science. Depending on the topic, you might lean more to one side (e.g., objective morality exists vs. humans are naturally self-interested).

-In my experience (for the few years BQ has been around), disputes over evidence in BQ shouldn't be boiled down to "well our sources disagree." Generally, a dispute around a big question is epistemological, about how we come to know things and how certain that knowledge really is. For example, saying that "humans are naturally protective of their young" is not really disagreeable on a factual basis, but whether that information is significant as to whether humans are self-interested is a matter of specific theoretical framing and definition.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Policy:

-Don't spread. If you go too fast, I'll say 'clear' until you slow down. This has resulted in me saying clear within the entire 8 minutes of a speech, so please do slow down.

-Please do not force me to rely on an email chain to decide the round.

-On T: I am pretty lenient when it comes to whether a plan/counterplan is topical or not. My standard for determining this is whether or not the plan fits in what I conceive as the "spirit of the resolution." Something may not be strictly topical as per the verbiage of the resolution, but is still topical as it fits the resolution's intended spirit as written. The only times I will flatly reject a plan on topicality is (1) if it is too large in scope, as to encompass the resolution rather than the other way around, or (2) it is so disconnected from the topic that it may as well be a non-sequitur. As an additional note, please don't waste time making a bunch of topicality arguments. It is often time-consuming.

-K's are most commonly a cheap trick, in my view--I know that they're used topic to topic and round to round with little change, as a means to minimize exhaustive prep and real engagement with the topic. The only exception I'll give is to specific instances of abolition/discourse K's, in which you argue (in good faith, I'll be able to tell) that the verbiage or framing of the resolution overly limits available/acceptable discourse. Regardless, don't anticipate a vote in a K's favor. You signed up for this tournament, after all, and your decision to sidestep the topic reflects at least partially on your intellectual honesty.

I am a math teacher and speech and debate coach at Purvis High School in Purvis, MS. Our primary focus as a team is on speech and interp events, so my experience with debate events is rudimentary.

I judge LD debate, where I would prefer that debaters not spread. I judge primarily on the flow with an emphasis on value and criterion, but I do give a higher weight to presentation than do many debate judges. I feel that debate should not just be an exercise in logic and evidence (though that is the focus), but should also reflect the reality that the way in which information is presented affects its persuasiveness.

Courtesy, clarity, and connection. Please be polite, speak to make your points or performance clear to the audience (the judges), and (in debate) explicitly articulate the connection of your evidence to your point(s).

Speech & Debate is as much an educational activity as it is a competitive activity, so my comments will be focused on what seemed to work or not work within the context of what it appeared you were trying to accomplish.

I give only a brief paradigm here because I do NOT want you to attempt to tailor your presentation to a bunch of imagined traits and preferences I may or may not possess. Run YOUR case; give YOUR performance - I will judge and comment upon the presentation's face value to the best of my ability.