I did Public Forum for 3 years and am now a debater at Whitworth University!

General things to keep in mind:

1) I can keep up with speed, but be clear on taglines (Spreading ok, but if I don't catch it, it won't go on my flow; so be sure I catch it.)

2) Be respectful in round; I do not mind being assertive in cross etc. but direct insults and other forms of disrespect will result in low speaker points. Do not speak/whisper while your opponents are speaking. Disrespect will result in speaks being docked.

3) No impact = no voter; tell me why your evidence matters. Do not just read cards with no analysis.

I do not flow cross.

Definition and framework debates are not my favorite, so if you debate on fw/def make it worth everyone's time.

You may time yourself, but my time is the official time. If you want hand signals ask, otherwise none will be given.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me before round starts :)

If you ever have a question on a round that you feel wasn’t answered in rfd and feedback you may email me, and I will hopefully respond in a timely matter. clairebacon06@gmail.com

Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery. Arguments may be grouped in order to address all of them. A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches. Debaters should time themselves so they can stay in the allotted time. Clash should be done civilly, please never attack your opponent. Remember it is your job to convince me to be on your side. Evidence should be cited, arguments/evidence should extend the v/c, and signpost – make it easy for me to follow. Let me know you are going off case - be sure your very clear in your delivery - slow down and make sure I'm understanding your case.

I really like to read docs, so please include me on chains/send docs: angelocthechef@gmail.com. I flow on paper like a normal person, so give me a little time to switch sheets and signpost often.

While I currently debate at Gonzaga University, I also like to dabble in judging and coaching.

I'm also newer to actual debate than most debaters in the college scene. I did mock legislature for 4 years of high school, and started PNW/CARD debate in 2021.

I have one philosophy as a judge: be cool.

Be cool, collected, and kind during debates. If you're getting red in the face yelling during cross-x for no reason I'll be sad :(

Cool/interesting arguments MAY also make me prefer your side, and give you the benefit of the doubt. Just don't take anything too serious if it doesn't need to be taken as such. (Things like racism, homophobia, transphobia will be taken seriously)

I also really appreciate heavy impact calc, laying out in ground terms why your plan/idea has a superior outcome. I'm also always down with Ks, or anything interesting really, even including sneaky strategies. All I need is for you to explain why I should cast your ballot.

For more complicated K's, framework, and theory, I'll need some heavier baseline explanation.

Okay, my paradigm is simple. I love clash. I want to know how your case is different from other people's, especially your opponent.

If I think your evidence is questionable, I might ask to take a look at it before I make my decision.

If you can't think of something to say, REPEAT YOUR POINTS and give me voters. Voters are why I ought to vote for you. What have you proven in your case that affects the entirety of humanity? How does your opponent's case harm the world?

Give me fire and brimstone. I want to see passion! Without the volume, however. Be courteous to your opponent.

CX

I LOVE CX. But I will not flow CX unless you bring it up in your speech. Ask important questions! Try to dominate CX, appearing rude is different than being rude, and I love to see it. Do not attack your opponent's character. Do not look at each other

OVERALL
I want to be on the edge of my seat. Please make this interesting, and good luck!

I have over a decade judging debate and four years of debating LD and Policy. While I understand the sport aspects of debate currently in play my judging still relies on proper analysis and links, a strong understanding of the theories you present and your ability to frame the information you are using into a coherent meta-narrative. With a background in applied ethics I do consider myself more of a traditional judge and value an understanding of the philosophy at play.

I was a four-year high school debater. I competed at every level of Washington debate from novice to the state tournament. I want to see clash on both sides of the debate. I'd call myself a partial flow judge. The flow isn't the only thing I judge on, but it is a big part of a PUFO debate. From a judge's standpoint, I will assume anything with cited evidence is true until proven otherwise by the opposing team. If information is left unrefuted then it is therefore true. I don't mind spreading, but if your words are indecipherable they will not be flowed or weighed in the debate.

Congress:

-make your argument unique and with your own style. I do welcome amendments and having a chamber that is formal and that follows the NSDA Congress rules is what I like in a congressional chamber. your speech should not be that of which it re-iterates other speeches on the topic, I enjoy new ideas to discuss in a chamber. also, remember to have fun!

This is my first debate season as a judge, so far judging 2 open rounds.

I prefer speaking no faster than a fast conversational pace. No spreading. Technical jargon, especially around values and criterion, should be adequately defined so that I can tell if your case meets them.

I flow constructives and rebuttals. Cross-ex is for your information and I do not take notes during cross-ex.

I value strong logical arguments over style. You must draw connections between your contentions, impacts, and value criterion, and directly rebut your opponents points in a convincing way. Must maintain consistency throughout arguments.

Of course expect professional conduct, address judge during speeches, emotion during speeches is fine to a point.

I'm a parent judge who has been judging nearly every tournament for 6 years for my kids.

No Swearing.

No spreading. I can't understand it, and if I can't understand you, I can't judge you and that's sad.

Sign post. If you don't sign post then I get to guess where what you say applies and you don't want me to do that. I often don't guess correctly.

Provide impact(s). Tell me why what you said is important. It should not be a restatement of your contention.

Don't make me think for myself. Please tell me how to think, how to judge and how to apply your arguments. Otherwise I have to use my own bias to draw the lines, no one wants this. Not even me. I will take the path of least resistance to a ballot. If one is better explained, I will go with that one. Make sure your case is well-explained.

For CX

• Use 5th grader terms. While I am aware of Ks, T args, perms and the like, my knowledge comes from their use in LD, so my depth is lacking. If you accidently use a term in round please explain it.

• Seriously, please don't spread. I'm sorry. I will say out loud "clear" if you are going too fast. Most likely, you are going too fast. I'm sorry. Slow down on taglines, contention names, and other very important issues...like your case. I'm sorry.

• I think linearly, so don't rely on my ability to multi-thread thoughts in order to get through your links to your impacts. Keep it simple OR clearly connect it for me. If it is muddy or I don't get it, I will not vote on it. Your job is to explain your case to me in a way that I can vote and understand it. In other words, I am a flow judge.

• If you "kick" something, please tell me the tagline or contention or argument name and instead say We or I am dropping this. If not, once again, I will guess what you dropped, and that could be really bad.

• My favorite cases are ones that outline their case, support it with evidence, explain the evidence and tell me what and why I am voting for them. Contentions - Impacts - Voters

• If you change the role of the ballot, tell me what triggered it, why it is more important than the resolution and what the new role is. I will then be able to decide if I want to use your new ballot, or if your arugment is lacking I will keep the current one. This must be a rock solid argument and trigger for the new role.

• I will go wherever you take me. I am happy to entertain any debates backed by evidence and a clear train of thought. Nuclear war, extinction, fascism, and all the things are on the table. But please argue them with tact and warrants and clearly show me how we will get there. If you can do this, I am willing to judge it and weigh it in the round.

• Thanks for accommodating me and good luck.

For PF

• If you use a framework, make sure your contentions support it.

• If your opponent uses a framework and you don't want to be judged under that framework, state so in your constructive speech. It can be as simple as "I reject my oppenent's framework". Otherwise, I'll assume that you accept it. Note that a framework is not needed in PF.

• Final focus should be your voters. Tell me why I should vote for your side

For LD

I expect a traditional LD debate on moral grounds tied to a value and seen through the lens of your value criterion. Make sure all of your contentions support that value/value criterion.

I like a clear case with well defined arguments. I am an Industrial Automation Engineer who designs autonomous machinery. Give me facts and data to judge by. No fear mongering. Emotional arguments will not impress me.

I'm a flow judge so I'm going to vote based on what was said in the round. This means be explicitly clear as to why you are winning the round, not just the individual arguments (WEIGH). How should I be viewing the round and what is the most important ballot issues.

If an argument is dropped, I'll flow it for you, but just saying it was dropped is not a winning voter. You need to tell me why that argument is explicitly winning relative to whats happening in the rest of the round (true for any argument really).

Feel free to ask any specific questions you may have.

Public Forum: I usually use cost benefit analysis to compare each team's impacts. I prefer to have voting issues for comparison, but they are not necessary as long as the impacts are clear. I do not think that spreading really belongs in PF, but I will flow it as long as you slow down on taglines. At least try to take turns in crossfire. I won't vote a team down for being rude, but it will cost you some speaker points.

Lincoln Douglas: As this should be value debate, I prefer for your value to be a concept with intrinsic worth and for it not to be too vague (for instance, I would prefer "individual rights" over the wildly vague "morality"). This same preference is also true for your criterion. I would prefer that your criterion actually shows me how we determine what is moral vs the circular logic that starts with "promotion/reduction of..." (for instance, I would prefer "Rawl's Veil of Ignorance" to "promotion of equity"). I will follow my flow closely, so make certain that you extend and impact any drops. When you get to voting issues, make certain that you are actually using the criterion that you established in the round and that you are upholding your value.

Olathe Northwest '22 and current debater at Gonzaga University.

If you have questions about anything, email me at kaelyn.a.w@gmail.com.

General:

I will NEVER vote for ableism/sexism/racism/homophobia good or anything similar, and will vote you down the second I hear it. Do what you're most comfortable with, I would much rather see you perform at your best than try to adapt to me.

Disadvantages:

I think DAs are one of your best take outs on the aff's case. I'm fine with general DAs but if they aren't specific to the case you should have good evidence that clearly outlines the link. I will vote on pretty much any DA impact as long as you compare it to the affs and explain why yours is better and have the evidence to back it up.

Counterplans:

Counterplans should be competitive with the aff. Have a clear understanding of the perms and be able to defend how they are not viable options. If I believe that the CP can be permed I will not vote on it. (if you are aff pointing out logical flaws in the cp is a good way for me to flow it to you). If you are running DAs and a CP together, PLEASE pick a CP that doesn't link to the DAs. As long as you can convince me that the CP is better than the aff I may vote on it.

Topicality:

I fucking love T. IMO the interpretation is an internal link to accessing the impacts of the standards so I most usually default to competing interpretations. I'm sympathetic to fun ways of arguing t such as it being an RVI, so if you understand those args and can defend them I say go for it.

Kritiks:

God I love Kritiks. I frequently run them myself and am familiar with most of the literature behind common ones (Cap, Biopolitics, Critical Disability Studies, etc). I know the general concepts for others like Baudrillard but am not well versed so as a general rule make sure you have clear explanations. Your K should have a clear link to the aff, and I probably won't vote for it if there isn't one. I prefer functional alts, but have no problem with voting for the K as an independent DA if you choose to kick the alt. I find K debates super fun and interesting, so it may be a good choice if you're on the neg.

Framing:

FRAMING. FRAMING. FRAMING. Explain to me why your impact matters!!! This is key for both sides of the debate. If I believe the entirety of the aff and neg arguments because no real clash has taken place then it comes down to whoever has done the better job of showing why their impact is the most important.

Theory:

Don't run it if it's not warranted. I'm not a huge fan of voting on theory, but if the round comes down to it I will vote on it.