if you get me in LD somehow god help you

(on a serious note just explain things well and everything will be okay)

I am the head speech and debate coach for Tea Area. I’ve competed at both the high school and collegiate level and have coached since 2019.

Clear, organized communication impresses me over jargon. Talk at a speed that you feel comfortable, but do not sacrifice comprehensibility. If I cannot understand your speech, I cannot vote on your points. I value professionalism throughout the entire round—in crossfire especially. I flow arguments and do factor dropped arguments into my decision; however, debaters should clearly weigh their arguments, showing what is the most important, and tell me why they win the round.

I have a policy background but have been judging PF since the move away from policy in SD.

Extend warrants, offense, framing.

I will listen to anything, Ks included.

Please time your own speeches and prep, your opponents' speeches and prep, and CF. I will do my best, but I am counting on y'all to be doing this as well.

I would prefer to the extent that is possible that cards only be called in the instance of genuine concern over unfairness/cheating. Should you need to call a card otherwise, once your opponent has prepared it for your viewing, your prep starts.

graceleigh23@gmail.com

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

Rounds are evaluated on the strongest logical arguments supported by a good value and criterion. Framework should be referenced and used throughout an entire case and I enjoy how well the framework can be used in an argument.

Rebuttals that evolve and change throughout the debate are encouraged. Repeating yourself can be good to make a point, but I want to hear a thought out argument.

Feel free to speak at a fast pace, but make sure that what you say is spoken extra clearly. My least favorite debater is a fast-speaking debater that slurs half of the words they speak.

Hearing the voters at the end of the round are important to me as I don't usually have a decision set in stone until the last word of the final speech.

Please don't be too hard on yourself if you lose the round. Take it as a moment to learn from your competitor and come back to the next tournament having learned something/evolved your case.

Public Forum

My debate background is in college debate formats such as parliamentary debate and IPDA. If you are unfamiliar with these, no sweat. Essentially, I am comfortable with both layperson debate and more jargon-y, technical debate, so you can run just about anything in front of me. I am always down to listen to a good framework argument.

I tend to vote on collapsed arguments and impact analysis, so give me some good voters! I do not like having to make decisions in the round, and you shouldn't want me to either, it may not go in your favor. Be clear about exactly why you should be winning this round.

I consider myself a flow judge, so if your arguments don't end up on my flow, I probably won't consider them in my evaluation of the round. I can handle some speed, but if you start full-out spreading in a Public Forum round, I am not the person to do that in front of. Keep the debate clean and organized. I like to see good sportsmanship between teams, especially in the crossfire.

Remember to have fun!

My 1st year judging any type of Debate was 1962 so it is rare when I am not the "old guy" on the panel. When I first started judging, there was only one type of Debate, Policy. I have always tried to stay current with the various "new types of Debate" and regularly follow the various discussions published by NSDA and the various HANDBOOK PUBLISHING COMPANIES and I consider myself to have a good knowledge of the possible approaches that I may encounter in my assigned rounds.

TL;DR - Tech>Truth. I love philosophy. Offense and clash win my ballot. Weigh and extend impacts. Have good argumentation and convey it well.

Email: pandaXrider2415@gmail.com

---->BACKGROUND<----

Brookings High School '24

3 years of Lincoln-Douglas Debate and International Extemp

1 year of Public Forum

3 Time National Qualifier

Bounced around in Student Congress and Extemp Debate too... even have World Schools Experience

| 2024 SD State Semifinalist in Lincoln-Douglas Debate

---->TECH VS. TRUTH<----

Tech>>>

I am very much a tech judge and don't believe in being a truth judge

I am a big believer in evaluating the round based on what is on the flow. Often when writing ballots I find myself writing that even if something isn’t true I will evaluate it based on the context of the round

As a judge, I cannot be bothered to try to think about my own opinion on the argument when my job is to evaluate the round based on arguments the debaters make

---->TIMING & SPEED<----

I will time all speeches and prep time. But I ask you time yourself as well to make everything smoother

I'm okay with speed as long as it's understandable... if I can't understand you then I can't vote for you

---->LINCOLN-DOUGLAS<----

Philosophy>>>

I'm pretty traditional when it comes to LD but that's not to say I don't like certain Circuit LD techniques

| Trad |

Clash on the framework. Explain why your value is most important and how your criterion best upholds it

Use contentions and the impacts to link back to your framework to show me how you uphold it

Weigh and extend your impacts!! This is incredibly crucial in a moral debate

Always warrant your cards

Uncontested turns are huge

Use voters. They do a great job of making what I should vote on clear

| Circuit |

Make sure your links and argumentations actually make sense

Disclosure Theory - 1/10. Hate it. Don't like it. Just strike me if you like doing this.

Theory Shell - 8/10. Just make sure the interpretation, violations, standards, and voters make sense.

Kritik's - 1/10. Also hate it. Don't waste time in our debate rounds complaining about NSDA rules or anything like that.

Counterplans' - 8/10. Again, if it's a solid counterplan that's carried through the entire round and holds its own merits, I'll vote on it

Disad -7/10. I do like disadvantages. Just make sure you use the consequentialist link chain and really show me how voting for the other side is a bad idea.

Role of the Ballot - 8/10. Establish good conditions and extend them.

Spreading - 2/10. Just don't. It never sounds good. If you decide to spread, then let's do an email chain or speech drop.

---->PUBLIC FORUM<----

Extend everything

Quantify and weigh impacts

I love voters. They do a great job of condensing the round into clear issues of what I should vote on

No new arguments in 2nd summary. This is done way too often... and also don't only start establishing the narrative by then... you should have the narrative present through the entire round

Have good warrants, uniqueness, and link chains. All of these are necessary for a good case

I am primarily an LDer so I do like a good framework in debate such as a cost benefit analysis or really anything as long as you find a way to make it work

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas and Original Oratory at Harrisburg in my final semester of high school. At state, I competed in OO and was a finalist in LD; I also competed in LD at Nationals (2024).This is my first year judging, and I’m super excited to be here!! Speech and Debate is supposed to be fun, so have fun with it!

General:

1. Be respectful of one another. Any racism, sexism, ableism, etc is not tolerated at all. I will vote down for this; it hurts the nature of an activity that is meant to be inclusive.
2. PLEASE SIGNPOST, PLEASE!!! If I do not know where to flow, I won’t flow. It helps everyone in the room if we know what you’re saying to what.
3. I’m good with speed (as long as you enunciate); but remember, the faster you talk, the more likely something can be missed on the flow. If I don't understand your speaking, I don't flow.
4. DO NOT DROP; but a drop doesn’t count unless the opponent pulls it through.
5. Off-time roadmaps are all good with me. Just don’t use that as your signposting for the whole round.
6. If you run a K or theory, I will listen. For K's, have all three parts of it; if you're going to run it, do it right. I am 100% cool with counterplans, even if they're not explicity stated as one; if it's resolutional, still meets the goals, and in a better way, cool!
7. What happens explicitly in the round is what I judge; I don't judge what I think you're trying to do. Do the work for me.

LD:

1. After clash, whichever framework (or combination of framework) is upheld the most, is how I evaluate the round. If you show me how you win both frameworks, you're in a very good spot to receive my ballot.
2. I do buy solvency in LD.
3. I give my ballot on three things:adherence to the framework mainly, and partly the quality of contentions/link-chains, defenses, and impacts.

PF:

1. Weighing your evidence and telling me why your evidence is more relevant/important is an easy way to get my ballot.
2. Voters are really important. You tell me why to vote for you; take advantage of that and summarize the issues of the opposing side in the round.
3. Ultimately, I give my ballot on two things: the quality of the contentions/defenses and impacts.

IEs:

I am not here to judge your topic or script; I’m here to judge your speaking and your approach to the topic or piece. I love seeing unique takes, even if it’s a “basic” topic. Just move with purpose, enunciate, give eye contact, have vocal inflections, facial expressions, and you’re good to go.

Other Events:

Not an ounce of knowledge :)

Background

I got my bachelor's in Religion and Philosophy from Augustana University (SD) and I’ve been teaching coaching speech and debate for Brookings, SD for the last few years.

Ethics

Coming from the world of philosophy and ethics, I am particularly picky when it comes to respectful debate. Please keep good ethos form the moment you enter the room to the moment you leave.

SPEECH EVENTS

When it comes to Interp. and IEs, it’s all about delivery (and content where appropriate). Make sure your voice is loud and clear, but be careful in humorous / dramatic pieces. Things like laughter, screams, cries, etc. are often done too loud for a small room. I’ll comment on everything from movement, to clarity, to character and everything in between. For pieces that you’ve composed (orig. oratory, extemp., etc.), I’m looking for cohesive structure, good intros/conclusions, and clear main points that follow the purpose of the piece.

DEBATE

Overall:

I am fine judging however fast you feel necessary; however, go faster than conversational speed at your own risk. However fast you go, your presentation should be clear, understandable, and well structured. If I can't hear or understand it, I don't factor it into the debate or my decision. I also love clear and concise voters / clinchers in your final speeches!

Under the consideration of what’s listed below, I’m willing to listen to and judge based on what you deem important so long as it’s clear, relevant, and uses sound reasoning. As far as K’s, I’m open to listening to them; however, I’ve found them relatively ineffective, especially if they are not run well (you need to make sure they still have connection to the resolution).

LD:

This is my bread and butter. With a philosophy background, I’m pretty familiar with just about any philosopher you could throw my way. Particularly with the more popular philosophers, make sure you know how the philosophy you’re using works. If you don’t, it will show.

When it comes to how I judge a round, LD is a value debate and I think this should be the main focus. Your contentions should be purely to support your framework, not the only focus of the debate (it’s not PF).

PF:

I feel evidence plays a bigger role in PF than in LD, so I’m far more interested in hearing evidence-based reasoning in round. Just like LD, outside of this, I’m willing to judge what you, your partner, and the other team focus on throughout the round, just keep it clear and structured.

CONGRESS

Congress is one of my favorite events and I even had the pleasure of serving as the parliamentarian in the 2024 NSDA Senate Final! If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask me. When it comes to judging speakers, I'm looking for clear structure and well utilized evidence. The Authorship/Sponsorship/First AFF and First NEG speeches should set the stage for the corresponding side of the legislation while the following rebuttal speeches should ADVANCE the debate rather than consist of canned speeches that have little if anything to do with what has been said in the session. If you give a crystallization speech when you see debate is dwindling that's a nice plus along with references to the wording of the legislation or comments made by specific legislators. For PO, I'm more than happy to include a great PO in my ranking and will do so if I feel they were vital in the running of the chamber. A good PO keeps consistent times, gaveling procedure, accurate precedence/recency, and, most importantly, maintains decorum in the chamber.

If you want to do speech drop/email chain that's fine I guess. My email is katie.jacobs@k12.sd.us.

Most importantly, HAVE FUN!!

LD: I tend to lean more to a traditional LD judge style. The framework debate is important and I will always appreciate debaters who connect their contention level arguments back to the Value & Criterion. My background is in policy, so I will keep a flow and value that in a round. Maintaining focus on the resolution is important as well. I appreciate debaters who weigh out their arguments and give me clear reasons to vote one way or another.

In general I'm fine with speed and can follow arguments as long as clarity is maintained. That being said, my vote never just goes to who has the most arguments. In LD especially, I prefer well thought out and well weighed arguments versus a flood of arguments that may or may not hold merit.

At the core, I don't see a judge as someone who should intervene in the round. This is the debaters space to utilize their own strategies and argumentation. If you can explain an argument and give me reason to believe it matters in the round I will vote for it.

PF: Rounds most frequently come down to how well arguments are weighed out/impact calc for me. If you have framework or resolutional analysis you should be connecting your arguments back to it.

I have no problem following jargon or more advanced debate discussion, but I don't feel like Public Forum debate should devolve into a policy debate round in half the time.

Evidence is important in public forum debate and I do consider that when making decisions. If you are going to criticize your opponents evidence or call out any abuse, I want to see a reason behind it and why I should consider it in my decision making. Just saying "we post date" or "their sources are faulty" won't carry much weight unless you actually show me why it matters

Email: livvyjo11103@gmail.com (put me on the email chain, and feel free to message me post round)

About me: Olivia She/her (21) I am currently an individual events coach at Sioux Falls Jefferson! I attend USD online and work in marketing.

TLDR:

Debate is hard, please have fun and after the round, shake it off and never let a down bother you!!

PLAY NICE. There is nothing worse than a round where I as a judge feel flustered because of how the debaters are treating their opponents. I will comment on this, and I will give you lower speaks because of this.

I do not do time signals, do not ask. (Debate)

I prefer if you have time on your own (I tend to forget).

During your opponent's speech, please refrain from talking, and listen to what they have to say, even if it is the last speech. They are valid and deserve to be heard as much as you do

My debate career:

I graduated from Central High school in 2022 and was a member of the debate team for all four years of high school. I did policy, pf, oratory, and info - qualified to nationals 3 times.

PREFERENCES:

I tend to lean more tech over truth - and I am very open to experimental debate, within reason. Just ask before the round or let me know if you wanna do something crazy. That being said, i will vote truth over tech, if there is literally no warrant or link to the debate/evidence.

QUALS AND STATE: (Debate)

Lay it out for me. If I do not understand your argument I will not vote for it. Ks and Theory, are okay - just make sure they connect back. If you want to try something new, please go for it.

As always, be nice and play by the rules.

- EVIDENCE SHARING: This shouldn't take long, as we have some long days ahead - or it's the end of a super long day for all of us. It's cool if you just set up an email chain or something to make the process go faster. (but of course, add me in)

- EVIDENCE VIOLATIONS: I am ALL for the educational level of debate. If something is not true, please say something as I will not catch it like you do - because I am less experienced in the topic, and do not have the card in front of me. I will look at all cards brought to me, but I will not ask if you do not say anything.

Public Forum:

I am okay with speed. Keep things on the flow, if you drop something and do not address it, I no longer consider it an argument. I am good at following the flow. - That being said, please stay organized, it's easier for everyone to understand when you follow the order of contentions and arguments that are set up during the first few speeches.

Keep a good roadmap throughout the whole round and TELL me what I should vote for. Believe in what you are saying and why you win. Carry your arguments all the way through, if you drop something, tell me why, do not ignore it. With this - if you drop something you are not allowed to pick it back up. Consider it on the floor and I can't see it - do not bring it up in the final speech.

Please refrain from using abstract arguments such as Ks, Critiques, and CPs in South Dakota main season, UNLESS you are able to prove exactly how this relates to the resolution and your contentions. Experimental debate is only fun if it makes sense and works within the round. I debated policy for the majority of my debate career (being in the final policy round EVER in SD) so if you use them, I will know what you are talking about - your opponent may not so explain exactly what you mean. (CPs are very controversial in PF, I would strongly avoid these if you don't wanna talk about it for the duration of every speech and get debated on topicality and resolutional analysis)

LD:

I do not have any competion experience with LD, and have been juding it for the last 3 years. With this, I am someone who, like PF will judge based on your clash. Believe in what you are debating, even if it is not your own personal belief outside of the round. If you do not care about what you are saying I will pick up on it, and stop listening.

I tend to lean towards a criterion and value debate as my main voter (any framework actually), as it’s there for a reason. You drop your criterion, you lose. You don’t uphold your value, you lose. Pretty self explanatory.

CIRCUIT:

Do not be abusive to your opponent. No disclosure theory if I am in the back. You can run theory, you just have to explain why it pertains to the text, and are able to back it up.

Speechdrop and email chains, make it quick. I am not spending 20 minutes trying to set it up when you did not come prepared. Have a print-off of your case as backup.

Ks, CPs, and DAs: Make sure you are explaining these in order of event - like if you have 2 DAs that are triggered by something, or solved by the CP, make sure they make sense to me. Explain if your opponent does not know what you're talking about, as not everyone normally debates circuits, on the traditional level these do not exist. Be courteous.

Spreading: IDC if you spread (I'm an 8/10 on speed) - slow down on tags and cards so I can follow. Please share your speech doc with me if you spread it so I can look back if I need to. I used to spread myself and know how to do it in a nice way.

DO NOT ASK ME TO READ MY PARADIGM FOR YOU.

DO NOT try to make any arguments that are racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, discriminatory, and generally anything else you think I would get upset with. I do not tolerate hate in a progressive environment. Please do not say these things, I will stop listening and will contact your coach. I do not have a poker face, so you will know if you have made me upset.

Prior to the strength of the arguments, I take into consideration the following:

1. Organization: This is key. In order to make an informed and complete decision, I need you to speak in such a way that I can make a decision using an organized flow. SIGNPOSTING and TAGGING are essential for this. Speed is not.

2. Professionalism/Character: Rudeness will absolutely not be tolerated. Speech and Debate should help build better humans, therefore if excessive rudeness or words/actions showing poor character happen in the round, you'll be much less likely to win that round.

Only after these are met will I move on to:

3. Strength of Argument: Every round is unique - one round might be decided on framework, one on a single contention, one on lack of argument on one side or the other, etc. Be a good speaker and get your argument across in a complete and logical way? You are likely to win the round.

[Overview]

I did Lincoln Douglas debate my senior year, did public forum for 3 years, I’ve done congress, and then big question (very very poorly) for a hot second, so you don’t have to dumb down jargon.

I don’t disclose rounds, so don’t ask me to or try to persuade me into disclosing, you're just wasting time.

I know what it’s like to have to carry teammates in a debate, and just how excruciating the whole thing is so I have zero tolerance for it if I see it in round.

Also I make faces when I think about things which makes me look very angry and like I’m scowling, ignore that I just have a RBF it doesn’t relate to how you’re doing a majority of the time.

[General]

/Evidence/

PF:

If you want me to take the evidence you have into consideration in voting you have to carry it throughout all your speeches; you can’t give evidence in Rebuttal, drop it in summary, and then try and bring it up in Final Focus, I won’t flow it. If someone asks for a card, give it to them.

LD:

it’s the same as stated before just change the speech names.

/Speed and Performance/

I don’t like spreading, don’t do it (I have audio processing problems). My preferred speed is a moderate pace, aka a 6-7/10. Just make sure you speak clearly as far as performance is concerned.

/Time/

TIME YOURSELF. You need to use up your speech time, I hate it when there’s a minute or more left on the clock so try your best to get as close to the set time as possible. If you can’t think of anything else to say about your opponent's case, go over your own case and explain why it stands or your framework, something to fill your time if you have no more evidence to read. I will time your speeches, I will also time your prep but I tend to get distracted during prep so don’t tell me a set amount of time. If you want a set amount of prep then you can time yourself and then just tell me when you're done using prep and I’ll stop my timer.

/Speaks/

High: you did your best and you tried and gave good speeches, I will only give you a 30 if you are absolutely perfect on everything you do and have a good amount of debate etiquette but you are also assertive and don't let your opponents walk all over you.

Low: You went silent for a majority of the speech, you had an abusive argument, you showed disrespect/lack of care. If you are abusive to your opponents you will get as close to 0 speaks from me as possible without getting a full 0, and if you make your partner carry you the entire round and do nothing you will instantly get the lowest possible speaks from me.

/Framework/

PF:

If you're going to use a framework and want me to vote under it then you need to bring it up in all your speeches so you don’t drop it. If your framework outweighs your opponents explain to me why, same goes with why it completely goes against your opponent's case and why you win under it. Although I don’t like it if you only drop your framework in rebuttal but carry it through your summary and final focus I’ll vote under it, but only if you use all your time up in rebuttal.

LD:

I AM BIG ON FRAMEWORKS!!! PLEASE tie this into what you’re saying in round and have it actually make sense, this is the thing that really differentiates ld from pf. If you’re running a framework it should never be both deontological and consequential, that’s not how frameworks work. Just carry frameworks through the round as its a main thing that I use to vote in the round.

/Case/

With cases just make sure it’s understandable and set up in an organized manner. When I say this I mean state your contentions and subpoints so it’s easier to flow and judge the round. I prefer off-the-clock roadmaps so I know which case you're going down and so it’s easier to flow and judge on what you’re saying. If you’re using an off-the-clock roadmap then actually follow it.

/Variation/

For novices, I completely understand that you are new to debate so I’m more lenient on things that I wouldn’t allow, from Judging a practice round for Varsity for example. I tried to make my paradigm all-level friendly so it doesn’t matter what level you are.

Policy Debate: I am more of a games player. To clarify, I see debate as an educational game that is being played. There are basic rules that are established (sides are set, time limits are set, a resolution has been established). I do reject moves that seek to create a completely unfair environment for either side (I can talk about what ever I want because resolutions don't matter attitude). I am good with almost any argument that is grounded in sound theory.

Specific Issues:

Kritiks- I like a good kritik that actually explores what the affirmative/negative is doing in a round, but the team running the kritik must understand what the kritik is actually doing. I do expect every K that is run to have a clear link to the K, implications for me to weigh and an alternative that goes beyond vote for us (in 99% of the K's). If it is an extremely complex concept, don't assume I already know what you are talking about. You will probably need to slow it down a step or two to make sure I am following the logic you are discussing.

Performance Debate: I am not a fan of these concepts. The reason is simple. You showed up for a debate round. You should debate the resolution. What performance debates do in my opinion is come to a Monopoly tournament and dance in the hallway and expect to win the Monopoly tournament. You can't not do the event and expect to win the event.

I am not a fan of the politics DA. The leap in logic of plan causes people to vote in a completely different way just has no theory behind it. I will listen to it, but the threshold for beating the argument is very low.

Concepts like topical counterplans and such are fine, if you can present a clear defense connected to theory that explains why they should be okay.

In the end, I look at the offense that is left on the flow. I prefer teams that go after more offensive style arguments then those playing defense on everything.

On speed, my expectations are that you must be clear enough for me to understand you and the evidence that you read (not just tags). If you are not, then I will not flow it and I will not yell "clear." It is your job to communicate.

Lincoln-Douglas: I am more of a traditionalist. I prefer more focus on the framework in the debate and connecting your observations back to the framework and the resolution. I am not a fan of disads/counterplans/and other traditional policy arguments being run in LD since it ignores the unique distinctions between the two events.

Running of K's- A recommend that you read what I said about it in the policy level and know that this can be a bigger problem because of a lack of time in presenting and defending the K.

Speed is fine, but you must be clear. I need to understand what you are saying. I am more forgiving on the line by line in LD than I am in policy, but you do need to address the main issues and just not ignore them.

Public Forum: Good debate that uses strong evidence throughout to prove your positions. I do not weigh the cross-fires heavily, but I do listen to them and will allow for answers to be used in the debate. You don't have to win every point on the flow, but you need to provide me with clear reasoning why you should win and less about why your opponent should not win. Weigh the round. When citing evidence, make sure that you are not relying on paraphrasing.

World School: Coaching it for the second year. Do not try to define people out of the round. Focus on the stated judging requirements of style (delivery) and content (logical reasoning and appropriate backing). The logical reasoning presented is not the same as strategy. The logical reasoning is content.

catherinxliu@gmail.com

Sioux Falls Washington ‘21, Harvard ‘25

Experience: I did LD for 4 years. I now do a lot of APDA/BP. I mostly did traditional debate but am generally familiar with/did some circuit. I was a 2021 NSDA finalist in LD.

for South Dakotans:

If people in the room want disclosure/feedback immediately after round I will do it.

In general I think debaters should be more creative and more willing to make strategic calls. More specifically:

• PLEASE use me as a judge to test interesting frameworks/non-stock arguments.
• You should concede framework if it's obvious you should concede framework. You should always ask: Do these frameworks prioritize meaningfully different things? If no, framework probably doesn't matter. Similarly, the NC does not have to read framework. You can just say "I concede the aff framework."
• I will HEAVILY reward these things in the 2nr/2ar:
  1) Choosing one or two arguments and weighing them very well (both links and impacts). I do not like split voters that try to win everything in the round.
  2) Weighing against the best version of your opponent's case. If you start your voters with the phrase, "even if you believe all of my opponent's arguments," and then you convince me that you would still win, I will give you a 30.
  3) Clearly implicating arguments in terms of the mechanics of the round (e.g., "if I win my deontological framework, then neg can't weigh any consequential offense, which means their contentions 1 and 2 don't matter").
• Empirics need warrants. If you cannot explain your evidence I straight up might not vote on it. If neg reads “trickle down economics works and wealth taxes decrease investment” (with mediocre warranting) and aff reads evidence that says this isn’t true, aff also needs to explain why this isn’t true, otherwise I will be very hesitant to vote for them.
• It's your burden to have a warrant, not your opponent's to point it out. If you extend an impact that I believe to be unwarranted I will not vote on it. This also means you get the implication of your warrant, not your tag. You can't be like "a wealth tax causes economic collapse" if your warrant just says that investment will decrease. I will listen to your cards and will be sad if you over-claim impacts.
• Huge fan of strategically dropping arguments.

—

Here are my general thoughts about debate. Feel free to ask me other questions before the round starts.

• Tech > truth
• I am fine with evaluating most things.
• Reasonable speed is okay, but my ability to understand spreading is really not very high now, and I will not flow off the doc. Slow down especially on tags and analytics.
• You need to extend the whole argument (warrant + impact).
• I usually find that the 2a/n is more effective when you collapse on fewer things that are well weighed instead of many things. If you don't weigh your arguments, I will have to do it for you, and you may be upset by what I think matters most.
• Most theory is fine, but the more frivolous it is, the lower my threshold for responses. Interpret this how you will.
• I will not evaluate tricks.
• Please compare link strength, especially in util v. util debates :(. If aff reads "US presence causes terror through anti-Western sentiment" and neg reads "actually US counterterrorism efforts decrease terror" and then both of you keep extending these arguments past each other without any further comparison, I have no idea how to evaluate the clash and will not vote on it, even if the impact itself is well weighed.
• I like clear judge instruction.

Include me on the email chain: Rnold042302@gmail.com

TLDR for LD:In traditional debate I usually resolve the value debate first, then I look to see which side best maximizes that value or avoids harms associated with that value. Critical debates and theory args are cool with me, read what you want basically, I’ll vibe with it if it’s done well. See LD section for more.

Speed preferences (Please read):

PF: Should not be a policy speed, but a faster pace is ok as long as you are clear. It is still your job to make sure that you emphasize/slow down on the most important points you are making. Basically, if you want me to flow it, make sure its clear.

Traditional LD: Between pf and policy, National Circuit: See policy below

Policy: 6/10 speed. I did policy for 3 years, so I'm exposed to spreading. However, I would still prefer not too fast of a round. This isn't a traditionalist preference, but more of a matter of general accessibility for me. You can still spread to an extent, but it needs to be comprehensible. I should be able to get your arguments clearly even without the email chain (Although I would like to be on the email chain). If I think you are being too fast or not clear enough, I will try to say clear, but it is still on you to emphasize and make sure I get your key points. Don't worry about this too much, just remember not to go too crazy speedy.

General "TLDR" about me as a judge :

I did policy for three years and public forum my senior year, but I also have some experience with Lincoln Douglass. I am currently a student at University of Alabama.

I am most likely familiar with a wide variety of types of arguments you would likely run in the round, but don't assume you don't have to do the work to flesh out the arguments you present in the round well.

First and foremost- Run what you are best at. I'd rather see a good debate than what I prefer personally. This doesn't mean you have a free pass to run super bad/immoral args but don't feel like you have to completely fit the round around me.

I'm basically Tabula Rasa. Give me a framework/Framing and I’ll go with it until it is refuted or dropped. That goes for aff and neg. I would say that I minimize my interference in the round and with my paradigm as much as possible, and when I do have to make decisions (especially on theory) I try to go with whichever debate norms presented (aff/neg) maximizes education in the round (I take into account impacts like accessibility, racism, discrimination, etc as a part of education, so don't shy away from these args in theory).

Policy Specific:

Case Debate: I will vote probably not vote on solvency or case-takeouts alone (unless there are link/impact turns read). neg still needs to extend offense, otherwise I'll probably be very open to Aff "if there's a 1% chance..." type arguments.

CP's- I default to sufficiency framing. The cp's viability as a winning argument (barring theory) is essentially a product of how much it resolves aff impacts and the magnitude of the net benefit. On neg, be clear on what the net benefit is and how the cp doesn't link. Also, if it is not 100% clear on the distinction between the cp and the plan, outline the differences for me. This makes it easier for me to resolve arguments on the perm debate level.

For AFF- Perms are the best, but I'm definitely open to other stuff. Theory is good too, condo, specific to the cp, etc., as long as it is warranted out and you provide me with how they violate the theory arguments. Multiple perms are generally ok-ish, but if they are fairly unique or if a perm is similar to a previous perm, you have to highlight the differences otherwise I'm lenient on allowing neg cross-applications of perm answers.

K's-

I am fine with critical debate on both sides, but I need the link story to be clear for me on the flow. Also, pleaseeeeeeee understand and effectively explain the alt. I need to know how the alt resolves the links, solves for the impacts outlined, etc. Too many affs let the neg get away with not explaining the alt well enough. Even if its not "vague", push neg on this.

K affs are definitely chill, you do you. But if neg pushes framework, make sure you have good answers to the TVA. It doesn't have to be a super in depth arg, but I should see something in the 2ac/1ar about why defending the resolution or a TVA of your K aff is bad. Also unless it strictly does not work with your K, please please please try to have some type of /alt/advocacy statement to act as a stable point for neg-testing.

On neg- I'm most familiar with the cap k and wildersonian afropess args, but you are cool to run whatever as long as you explain it well and make sure I understand the story of the K. Don't assume I know your lit. Also, you will likely need to reduce speed on these arguments given my likely unfamiliarity with the specific literature.

T- Default to competing interps but can be convinced otherwise. Also, on aff don't just say "reasonability". Reasonability also requires extension of a counterinterp or you must win we meet bc Reasonability means we meet a reasonable interp of the Resolution. It's not a wishy washy justification of tangentially topical affs.

Theory: I'm open to most all things, but a caveat: I'm not a big fan of generic wiki-based disclosure arguments (unless it is centered around some other impact like accessibility or taken in a critical direction). If I can tell you are just reading generic "Your aff wasn't listed on the wiki so you should lose" I'll listen to it but I will let you know I don't think its a great argument unless it is tied to deeper accessibility or fairness norms (i.e, tell me a story and give me meaningful impacts). You have to prove why this is a reason to drop the debater. Neg has a higher threshold for winning this than T in my eyes.

LD- I'm most familiar with traditional value-framework LD, but Plans are ok on more progressive circuits or if both debaters are ok with it (but then neg also gets full access to cps and K's). In traditional debates, I first decide which value is to be used in the round (based on arguments made), and then look to see which side maximizes that value. Dropping your framework is ok in my book if you can win under your opponents framework.

I'm open to critical arguments or circuit debate styles as long as general accessibility to the debate is maintained for both debaters. However, If aff takes a traditional ld approach w/o a plan, neg needs to argue why they (the neg) should get conditional advocacies (this is definitely an uphill battle). For more info on my paradigm for progressive circuit ld style, see ^ for policy.

PF-

I default to hypo testing for public forum. The game is one of "resolution: true or false?" This is similar to what you're normally used to in pf so nothing mainly different. The key difference is that this isn't only just squo versus pro world, but instead a test of the resolution as a truth claim. Therefore, con can make arguments that aren't the squo as long as they don't read a specific plan or advocacy. I repeat, No plan statements or specified advocacies!

Please give me impact comparison in the final speeches (Time, magnitude, probability, etc) to help me do an effective cost-benefit analysis on the topic (if that is the framework of the round). I will also admit i'm a sucker for a story. Cohesive impact narratives are much easier to vote on than messy disconnected ideas.

Critical arguments are ok, but no alts/plans. Theory is also ok, but I'll admit personally I'm not a big fan of wiki disclosure based theory args (see policy section for more). That doesn't mean its not a viable option, just you need to show actual in round harms.

Other than that, have fun!

(Any questions on my paradigm? Feel free to email me or ask before the round begins)

Other Notes:

-Feel free to use all of cx even if you don't have more great questions. It's free prep for your partner. I won't dock speaks for this unless it is egregiously bad.

I am a rhetoric coach, so I look for strong structure and clear arguments. Speed will not win you any points with me. This is a public address activity. Your arguments need to be understandable and substantiated. I will consider framework, but I will not vote solely on it. Make sure that you understand what your evidence is saying.

Ann Tornberg has been a Debate coach for 38 years. She has coached Policy, Lincoln Douglas, and Public Forum in addition to coaching Speech and Oral Interp.

"I want to be persuaded in LD. I want to be able to evaluate the evidence based on a strong, reasonably paced delivery. Do not speed read in LD if you want high speaker points. As you summarize make sure that you are referring to evidence that has been read in the round. I do my best to take a careful flow. Give direction to your argument and always signpost. Let me know where I should put your argument on my flow. Finally, give me your estimate of the primary VOTERS in the round, but don't be surprised if I find other issues that are just as important to my decision." Ann Tornberg

I am a down to earth judge. Organization and presentation are the keys to a winning round. Fast speaking will get you nowhere; and may cost you a round if the round is close.

Fancy jargon will not gain you any points, nor will nasty crossfires. I appreciate common sense, professionalism, and good grammar! Civility is a must!

Just debate the resolution; be organized; have a good time; good luck.