Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament

2019 — AL/US

Kiarra Broadnax Paradigm

Kiarra (Key-Era) Pronouns She/ Her/ Hers.

You can add me to the email chain {} To help me keep track of email chains. Put your team code and Round number in the subject section please and thank you.

Debated at Samford University (Policy) Currently at Coach with SpeakFirst (PF)

Things to do. (Policy)

1. Signpost, do line-by-line and use analytics.

2. Speed. Go as fast as you want. If you're unclear, I will look at you very confused because I will not know what to flow.

3. Kicking {Arguments, not other debaters} You should be kicking out of things. I will give .3 on speaks if it's creative. I LOVE a good mic drop moment.

Things to do. (PF)

1. Use analytics. they are super useful and make the debate more interesting

2. Speed. Go as fast as you want. I did do policy but If you're unclear, it will reflect in your speaker points.

3. Collapse down. You are not winning everything and we both know that.

Please, do not do these (Policy):

1. Yelling, Being passionate about your case is super cool, but yelling at me will make me not want to vote for you.

2. Introducing Harmful Partnerships into the Debate space. I get that debate is a stress-inducing activity but your partner is there with you for a reason. You should use them. I am fine with partners interacting during a speech. Ex: Your partner handing you a card or their technology to use to read a card off of, or handing you their flow. But if your partner is spoon-feeding you, your speech.

3. Demanding a Judge Kick. Nope. No. No, thank you. if you want to kick out of something then do so.

Please, do not do these (PF):

1. Excessively call for cards. I get it. Sometimes you need to see cards but calling for 5 cards per speech is a bit much.

2. Being rude during CX. I get sassy sometimes but screaming, not letting debaters answer or name-calling is unnecessary.

I'm easy to please. Don't be mean and make good argus.

Yay debate!

Joey Compton Paradigm

State Update: I'm sick, please don't get mad at me for coughing and sneezing.

Vestavia Hills High School '18

Auburn University '22

Email Chain:

Judge Philosophy: I feel like my job as a judge is to be as objective as possible and evaluate the round solely on the merits of the arguments presented.

General Debate Predilections/Requests That You'll Inevitably Ignore:

-I like debates about the topic. The stupider your interp is, the more annoyed I get.

-Tech over truth. Notwithstanding, if your "technical concession" took two seconds it probably doesn't matter.

-I really, really enjoy impact turn debates. They will be rewarded with higher speaks if done correctly.

-I hate, hate, hate long overviews. Just do it on the line by line.

-I care a lot about evidence. More on that below.

-You don't have to shake my hand, lol.


-You can have a framework debate if you want. I really don't care. That being said, if it's useless, your speaks will go down. Strategy, and using your time wisely, is key. Also, I need effective warrant analysis to evaluate voters under the framework - so, please do that.

-I don't care about speed. If you are *actually* going to spread, I'm cool with an email chain (email is below). If you are incomprehensible, I'll yell "clear" twice. After that, I'm done.

-I don't care whether you read the card straight up or summarize. But keep in mind, if you get called out for miscutting, I will call for the card at the end of the round. If I find you have grossly misrepresented the evidence, I'll probs drop you. It's up to you. I used to summarize, and it helped with the flow of the case, but if you want to play it safe, just read the card.

-I like effective warrant analysis. I will be sad if you don't do this. If you want to concede links for strategic purposes, I'm completely fine with it, just make sure you do it in the immediate speech from which the turn was read.

-I don't flow crossfire, but I really enjoy it. Ask strategic, nuanced questions and you will potentially be rewarded with higher speaks. Don't make arguments - that's for your speeches. Don't be rude.

-I think it's advantageous for the second-speaking team (2) to cover the first-speaking team's (1) offense on Team 2's case. It won't hurt your chances at winning my ballot and I won't require it, but it could potentially hurt your speaks. I like this because it makes for a cleaner summary and somewhat evens the playing field between Team 1 and Team 2.

-I hope you have your evidence! I used to call for a lot of cards, and I think it's cool when debaters actually try to directly interact with the evidence. As soon as you receive the evidence, I'll start prep. After a significant portion of time, if a team can't find a card or evidence, I will just start your prep until you concede the argument. You should have your evidence - no excuses. If a team or debater asks me to call for a card, I'll look at it after the round. I also reserve the right to call for cards even if I am not prompted to. I often do this if I'm making my decision off of one or two pieces of evidence. If I call for a card, I will never insert argument into the debate based on what the evidence implies, but I do reserve the right to drop you if it is miscut or you misread/misinterpreted it.

-As of recent, I've gotten really tired of keeping time. I've decided the best way to deal with this, as a judge, is to give lower speaks to teams who irresponsibly keep time. It's not that hard and it bothers me a lot. C'mon.

-Strategy, competitiveness, and good crystallization will get you good speaks. +.5 if you say Kanye lyrics, exclaim "War Eagle," or say a funny joke/pun during the round. Both teams can do it. UPDATE: Quite a good bit of debaters have been saying "War Eagle" to me. That's great and all, but the sentence above says "during the round" - thus, it should be in a speech.

-Rudeness, offensive behavior, wasted time/inefficiency, etc. will give you low speaks.

-I'm good with progressive args. I like disad-esque arguments with solid links. If you think it's necessary to run theory, please run it in shell form. I've never been too high on K debate. I'll vote on them, but I'm unfamiliar with most of the literature. I never really ran these when I debated, but if you feel as if you can explain it well, go for it. Don't pref me too high if this is what you do - I wouldn't be able to give you due diligence. It's not you, it's me.

-I'm more tech over truth. I'm willing to vote on a bad argument if it is won on the flow. I'm going to hate myself for doing it, but as much as I dislike dumb arguments, I dislike arbitrary judge intervention more.

-Meme cases? I'm listening. Don't throw away the round and run these if you can break, though. I don't want to take this opportunity away from you like John Scanlon did with me. You probably won't win, but it'll be fun.

-No matter your record, keep your head up and your mind open. Every tournament, and every round, is a learning experience. Don't let your record define you. Have fun with it, and don't be afraid to come talk to me before/after the round or over email if you have any questions.



-I'm open to really anything in a round, and I'm generally familiar with most styles of argumentation. I've only judged one LD tournament this year, so, depending on how good you are, I may be a tad rusty.

-I feel like my job as a judge is to be as objective as possible and evaluate the round solely on the merits of the arguments presented. I will vote on anything as long as it is: A) clearly explained, B) well defended, and C) weighed against other arguments. Basically: you do you.

-I'll vote on less-than-stellar args like NIBs or frivolous theory. You can definitely pick up my ballot if you do that, but I probably won't give you good speaks. As much as I dislike dumb arguments, I dislike arbitrary judge intervention more.

-Speed is fine, slow down for tags and authors, though. If you're going too fast, I'll yell "clear" twice. After that, I'm done. Keep in mind, if I can't understand you, I can't vote for you.

-I may call for cards after the round if need be.

-I won't flow cross but make it enjoyable - I was a huge cross guy. Make sure you're asking strategic questions. I don't want to be bored.

-I'm fine with progressive strategies such as Theory, DAs, T, etc.

-I'll vote on disclosure theory but your speaks will reflect how upset I am about voting on it.

-If you're gonna have an email chain, add me to it.

-Adding stuff to a speech doc counts as prep, but the physical act of emailing or giving a flash-drive to your opponent does not.

-I'm usually glued to my flow during the round, so if I'm not looking at you don't panic.

-Don't pref me high if you're a K debater. I'm unfamiliar with most of the literature and never really ran these when I debated. I wouldn't be able to give you due diligence. It's not you, it's me.

-Speaks: I'll dock points if you're obscenely rude or do cheap/tricky args. If you say a funny joke, drop some Kanye lyrics, or exclaim "War Eagle" during the round or cross I'll add .5 points to your speaks - both debaters can do it.

-Email me before the round (or after idc) if you have any questions:


Things I default to (not my preferences, just what I'll default to if you fail to address the issue).

-Competing interps

-No RVIs

-Drop the arg

-The resolution is a statement that is to be proven true by the Aff

-Theory comes before Ks and T

-Fairness / education are theoretically legitimate reasons to exclude certain practices

Big Questions Preferences:


Nate Conoly Paradigm


**3min summary update** You should still collapse in summary. The extra minute should not go towards you trying to cover everything on the flow. The extra minute should go towards cleaner extensions, more in-depth analysis, more frontlining on the argument you collapse to, and weighing/impact calc.

-Do not spread. On a scale of 1-10 for speed I prefer somewhere around 7. I would prefer you to slow down or pause a tad for taglines for my flow. Also if you list 4-5 short points or stats in quick succession, I probably will miss one or two in the middle if you dont slow down.

-Arguments you go for should appear in all speeches. If your offense was not brought up in summary, I will ignore it in FF.

-I do not think cross is binding. It needs to come up in the speech. I do not flow cross, and as a flow judge that makes decisions based on my flow, it won't have much bearing on the round.

-At the least I think 2nd rebuttal needs to address all offense in round. Bonus points for collapsing case and completely frontlining the argument you do go for.

-In terms of overviews, please do not be abusive. I don't like it when a team throws a nib on their opponent. I will reduce speaker points for this tactic. It's fine to use an overview for something that covers their entire case, not to just introduce a new argument that acts just like a contention from case.

-Please time yourselves. My phone is constantly on low battery, so I'd rather not use it. If you want to keep up with your opponents' prep too to keep them honest then go ahead.

-For speaking, I do not care at all about eye contact. I do not care if you sway, etc. I will not be looking at you during speeches, as I am looking down at my flow most of the time. Project your voice and be clear.

-In terms of some of the more progressive things- I haven't actually heard theory in a PF round but I hear it's a thing now. If your opponent is being abusive about something then sure, let me know, either in a formal shell or informal. Don't run theory just to run it though. Obviously, counterplans and plans are not allowed in PF so just don't.

-pet peeves:

1) Bad or misleading evidence. Unfortunately this is what I am seeing PF become. Paraphrasing has gotten out of control. Your "paraphrased" card better be accurate. If one piece of evidence gets called out for being miscut or misleading, then it will make me call in to question all of your evidence. If you are a debater that runs sketchy and loose evidence, I would pref me very high or strike me.

2) Evidence clash that goes nowhere. If pro has a card that says turtles can breathe through their butt and con has a card saying they cannot and that's all that happens, then I don't know who is right. In the instance of direct evidence clash (or even analytical argumentation clash) tell me why to prioritize your evidence over theirs or your line of thinking over theirs. Otherwise, I will consider the whole thing a wash and find something else to vote on.

3) Not condensing the round when it should be condensed. Most of the time it is not wise to go for every single argument on the flow. Sometimes you need to pick your battles and kick out of others, or risk undercovering everything.


a) What do you like to see in the round? A debate

b) What do I have to do to get a 30? Start by not asking me how to get a 30. I rarely, if ever, do I give a 30. I typically start with a 28 and deduct for rudeness, evidence ethics problems, general speaking, etc and goes up for good extensions, good strategy decisions, collapsing early, etc.

So first, I primarily judge PF. This means my exposure to certain argument types is limited. I LOVE actually debating the resolution. Huge fan. I'm cool with DAs and CPs. Theory only if your opponent is being overly abusive (so no friv). If you are a K or tricks debater good luck. I know about the progressive things but since I primarily judge PF, my ability to evaluate it is very limited from experience. If you want to go for a K or something, I won't instantly drop you and I will try my best to flow and evaluate it in the round. But you will probably need to tweak it a little, slow down, and explain more how it is winning and why I should vote for it. I come from a traditional circuit, so the more progressive the round gets, the less capable I am of making a qualified decision.

I do not want you to flash your case to me. I want to flow it. If you read to point that it is unflowable then it is your loss. If I don't flow it, I cannot evaluate it and thus, cannot vote on it. Spreading in my opinion is noneducational and antithetical to skills you should be learning from this activity. Sorry, in the real world and your future career, spreading is not an acceptable practice to convince someone and get your point across.

Please signpost/roadmap- I hate when it is unclear where you are and I get bounced around the flow. Have fun and don't be overly aggressive.

Eleanore Denegre Paradigm

I am a former high school Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum debater, and a current coach in both events.

In Lincoln-Douglas, I look for strategic and respectful cross-examination, strong logic and reasoning behind evidentiary arguments, and the ability to carry the thread of the value-criterion clash throughout the round. I weigh the framework debate heavily.

In PF, I expect debaters to divide crossfire time fairly and treat their opponents with respect while also strongly asserting their questions and answers. I expect all major arguments to be carried through each speech, from constructive to final focus.

In general, I expect arguments to logically follow and flow well together; I appreciate strong persuasive speaking and rhetorical skills, especially when backed up by solid evidence and argumentation.

Lukas Dill Paradigm

I debated PF and LD for one year in high school.

LD Paradigms:

I can handle a 7 on the scale of 1-10 in flowing. However, if you see me during a round and I'm not flowing you, it means you are going too fast for me. Don't be afraid to slow down and hit your best points the hardest.

That being said, I am familiar with maybe half of the terms in LD. If there is a term you use that you know many people don't know, explain it to me because I probably don't either. Be sure to link your value and value-criterion, and how they outweigh that of your opponents. And go over the biggest impacts your side may have in a round. I love to weigh impacts in a round.

Do not bully your opponent. I have seen this happen the most in LD and I don't know why, but you lose a lot of credibility if you attack your opponent rather than their points. Be concise, well-worded, and have intelligent arguments and make it a good round.

Rachel Ding Paradigm

8 rounds

General: I debated 4 years of LD in high school (2014-2018) and am now a student at Emory University. She/her/they pronouns. It’s been a few years since I’ve debated I prefer more traditional rounds and know nothing about the current topic. I like debates that are clear, concise, interesting, and generally give good vibes. Include me in the email chain (

Speed: Don't sacrifice clarity. If I can't understand it, I can’t flow. ALWAYS slow down on the tags and authors please. Hate messy spreading.

Extensions: I need to hear a clear claim, warrant, and impact for the argument to be fully extended. Otherwise, I won't weigh any argument that is partially extended as much. Crystallization is also key.

CP's: CP's must have an articulated net benefit. I honestly think PICs aren't very fair so I am very easily swayed by aff theory args. Disads: Impact calc is key and if you don’t clearly extend I won’t weigh! Also, I need to see an internal link. I can't/won't weigh your impacts w/o links.

K's: I am NOT well-versed on K lit at all. So basically don’t run a K if you want to play safe. If you want to take your chances, I expect clear articulation of link, impacts, and an alt that solves for the entirety of the aff, and at least try to simplify the argument.

Theory: In general, all theory arguments need to be in a shell and must have standards/impacts fleshed out. CI>reasonability, no RVIs>aff gets RVIs, usually drop arg> drop debater unless if there's actual abuse in the round.

T: Unless the aff is blatantly untopical, I think you shouldn't waste your time with topicality. That said, I do believe T is a voter.

Please signpost/roadmap - Since I'm a flow judge, I really hate when it is unclear where you are and I get bounced around the flow. ***If you don't tell me where you are, I literally can’t flow.

I expect to hear voters in the 2AR and 2NR.

Other: Do not be annoying or rude to your opponent. Being an actual mature and reasonable debater hits different.

Tiffany Dong Paradigm

8 rounds

I debated 4 years in high school in LD and PF. I competed in local and national circuit tournaments. Feel free to run anything in front of me. It's your debate, not mine. I don't mind if you sit or stand.

1. Please keep your own time. I like to conserve my phone battery.

2. In terms of speed, please just be clear. Slow down for card names/tags/theory. I'll yell clear if I can't understand you.

3. Theory: I like theory debate. :) CI>reasonability, no RVIs>aff gets RVIs, usually drop arg> drop debater unless if there's actual abuse in the round.

4. Kritiks: I'm not super well-versed in K-lit. If you do run a K, I like specific links to aff, clear impacts and an alt that solves for the aff. I still don't really understand aff Ks. If you say "perm, do both" please explain why, otherwise I'm not going to perm.

5. DA: I like. Say which aspect of the DA (uniqueness, link) is most determinant, impact calc is very important, I like internal link debates.

6. I don't think cross is binding, unless if you give me a good reason why.

7. If I'm not flowing and look confused, I probably am.

8. PLEASE signpost. I get confused and lost easily in real life. If I don't know which arg/card/impact/etc you're talking about, I won't flow it.

Ahmed Farrukh Paradigm

4 years of LD experience

I’m up for pretty progressive args.

Spreading is fine with (will call out for in round if needed)

Time yourselves- I'll keep a timer but I'm not paying much attention to it

Don't flow cross ex- anything said in cx should be brought up in rebuttal

Framework debate is super important!

Callie Ham Paradigm

***Include me in your email chain.***

It would be beset for everyone if you kept your own time.

Public Forum

To be a true PF judge, I shouldn't have one of these...right? But see below...

Lincoln Douglas

LD debate should remain distinct from policy debate. While the passage of new policy may be deemed essential for AFF ground with some resolutions (i.e. Sept/Oct 2018), value debate should remain central to the round. I don't mind speed or progressive/policy-style arguments in an LD round as long as you provide analysis of those arguments and link them back to the value debate.

Policy Short Story

As a judge, I am open to all arguments and styles of policy debate. Your job as a debater is to convince me that what you have to say matters and should be preferred to your opponent. The way you go about that is entirely your choice (within reason…professionalism and decorum are key). If you have questions pre-round, please ask. Having said that, here are some specific likes/dislikes as a judge which you can choose to follow or completely ignore (because I will objectively evaluate whatever lands on my flow whether I really like it or not):

Policy Long Story

Case: I do love case debate. I find it hard to vote NEG when case goes relatively untouched and hard to vote AFF when rebuttals focus on off-case arguments. Rounds where case is essentially dropped by both sides are my worst nightmare.

K: Not my favorite, but I will evaluate K. I’m not really well-versed in kritikal literature, so if you choose to run kritikal arguments (AFF or NEG), please provide thorough explanation and analysis. Don’t expect me to know the ideals that Whoever promoted because, unless you tell me, I probably don’t.

T: I tend to be pretty lenient on the affirmative as far as T goes. In order to win on T, the negative must completely prove that the affirmative has totally harmed the fairness and education of the round.

CP/DA: Sure? Run them? Why not?

Theory/Framework: Sure. Whatevs. Just tell me how/where to flow it and why it matters in this round.

The Flow: Tell me how to flow the round. Roadmap. Sign post. Please slow down for clarity on tags and citations. If you insist on spreading tags and cites, please provide me with a copy of your speech. If your arguments don’t make it on my flow, they cannot be evaluated on my ballot. I also do very little (feel free to read that as “no”) evidence analysis following the round. It is your job as a debater to clearly articulate the argument/evidence/analysis during your allotted time.

Have fun! Be nice! (or at least reasonable)

Charles Hartley Paradigm

3 rounds

Email: I will give everyone a .1 point speaker boost if I walk in the room and ya'll already have an email thread set up with my email in it ready to send. It looks professional and saves the tournament time.

Debate Background:

3 years of policy debate at Mountain Brook High School 2008-2011.

Policy Thoughts:

I’m not the smartest human. You’re maybe/likely smarter than me. Please do not assume I know anything you are talking about. And I would honestly love to learn some new things in a debate about arguments you invented.

Debate is a public speaking activity. Please be loud, clear, make eye contact, have good posture, and do not speak with your hands. I can give great speaker points to debaters that follow these rules. Humor is appriecated, talking down to your opppents is not. Make sure you understand the difference.

Condo. 3 against a basic/big stick aff is about my ceiling. 3 contradictory condo and I can more easily be persuaded to vote on condo.

Process/ Conditions/ consult CPs are the devil, unless you have a excellent solvency advocate specific to their plan text which can prove its predictable and important for that area of debate. But I’m persuaded that a generic/predictable aff posted on the wiki can win a theory debate against a generic process/ conditions/ consult CPs. You just need an interpretation about a world of debate that excludes these CP’s. "The" PIC maybe the worst CP of all time.

K debate is cheating in policy. Especially K affs (fact). Krtikal literature is obviously very relevant to being educated and ethical, but in debate this lit is bastardized for polemic positions that unfairly tilt debate in their favor for a litany of obvious strategic gains.

As a 2N my favorite last speeches normally had a Disad and some form of case mitigantion either in case D or a Counterplan, but ultimately I will try to evaluate all arguements made in round. If you have any questions not answered here please feel free to ask me before the round begings.

LD Paradigm

I am policy debater at heart. I will flow every word you say. Speed is a weapon in debate. LD is often one big K debate which is fine in LD but I err towards util/consequentialism FW's. I can be persuaded pre-fiat impacts are extra-topical and can be rejected as such (likely not a reason to reject the team). But I do love me a good ol' fashioned value premise throw down from time to time, I must admit. It is the premise.

PF Paradigm

I will reward teams that prioritize evidence and tech in PF debates. I would love for a PF team to step-up to the plate and read/execute on high quality evidence. I will likely call for cards. Hyperlinking is ok, but if you have to google/search for an article after I call for a card I will not evaluate the evidence and will treat it as an analytic.

Kai He Paradigm

Kai He

1 year Policy debater for Vestavia Hills High School

3 year LD debater for Vestavia Hills High School

I like to see a solid connection between evidence and reasoning for each of the debate's arguments. I also like to see the debaters pick their best arguments to go off of, not just as many arguments as they can make. This allows me to see that the debater has full grasp over the topic.

Not a huge fan of progressive debate, if you decide to run it, make sure it's the most fleshed out off of your life.

Spreading is fine as long as the speaking is clear. I can't flow something I can't understand or hear.

Jaime Jenkinson Paradigm

Jenkinson, Jaime L.:  Unaffiliated 

School Strikes:  Saint Francis High School, Eden Prairie High School, Champlin High School

LD Philosophy: 

I tend to vote on what the debaters crystalize as voters, which should be issues, and not values, isolated cards, etc. However, my default is to evaluate the round based on standards and their extensions.

Theory args should be supported by qualified/quantified proof.

I’m fine with speed that is clear and does not threaten depth of argumentation, as I prefer depth over spread- and only encourage it to the extent that it creates greater depth. I will not vote for arguments that I don’t/can’t understand, and I appreciate links back to the standard(s) to be very explicit and direct. I also will not vote on drops that have gone unimpacted, and expect that prestandards are warranted. I'm hesitant to say this, but competing frameworks tend to go aff in my mind.
I’ve been out of the game for a few years, so new jargon needs to be expressed in a way that I can follow. I cannot emphasize enough to BE CAREFUL WITH YOUR JARGON.

If you run an off-case, make the reasoning clear. And do not kick your entire case in front of me- it's aggravating and makes for bad debate.

Rachel Lee Paradigm

I debated traditional Lincoln-Douglas for 3 years in high school. That means I didn't spread, so do not spread. I enjoy a classic debate.

I don't think new arguments in closing speeches are fair, so I will not weigh them in the final decision.

I listen in cross, but if something important is said during it, you need to refer back to it during your next speech for me to write it down.

**I'm going to be honest: if your case needs an email chain in order for your opponent and me to comprehend it easier then it is too long and I will probably not listen.**

Finally, give me 3 reasons at the end of your final speech as to why I should vote for you!!

John Pace Paradigm


I am ok with aggressive debates as long as everyone is respectful

I do not like abusive arguments however


I would prefer a slower debate, allows for better arguments. Please do not spread


I judge heavily on the framework of the debate but if the value or criterion is complex make sure to explain it to me. I do not like theory


I keep time during debates and I do not allow for flex prep

Please Signpost

Please clearly state voters at the end of your argument

Jack Smith T Paradigm

I am an LD debater at Mountain Brook High School and I used to participate in Policy and Public Forum.

Novice LD--Betty Gunn Invitational

If you are here looking at this page as a novice debater, good for you you're on the right track.

I view a round from the top down on my flow, starting with the framework. The framework debate needs to happen. Even if you and your opponent have the same framework, you need to explain how your case should be viewed by me as a judge using that framework.

PLEASE weigh impacts so I don't have to do it for you. I know that you are a novice so even if you try to weigh your arguments against your opponents.

General Note: I do not fully understand (and for this reason greatly dislike) Kantian frameworks. If you choose to run one, please explain it thoroughly to me. I will not vote for you just because you stumped your opponent with arguments they don't understand. You need to understand them too.

I'm willing to listen to any type of argument you'd like to read but I can get lost in heavy philosophy, especially if it's poorly explained.

I will not make arguments for you at the end of the round, but you can help me sign my ballot by telling my what my role as a judge is in the round.

I do not flow CX but I do observe and pay attention so bring back up points in later speeches about something that went down in CX if you want me to weigh it.

Don't steal prep time. I will reflect it in your speaker points if you do. I don't charge prep time for emailing or flashing your case to your opponent.

Also, make a Ratatouille reference and I'll give you 30 speaks--JK JK, but in all seriousness that is the best Pixar movie of all time and I'm willing to debate you about it after the round if you like.

Be courteous to your opponent and have fun!

Policy Style Args for LD

CPs--Love them as a 1N, hate them as a 2A. If you run a CP make sure you have a solid net benefit. I will vote on Condo, especially in LD, if you run a bad CP and then kick it in the last speech

DAs--these are good too; make sure you have a solid link; the first thing I look at when questioning the legitimacy of a DA is the link to the Aff

Ks--I know little to nothing about heavy theory or philosophy Ks; I will listen to you and try to understand but if you are thinking about running something like Baudrillard or Foucault or Psychoanalysis I will have zero clue what you are talking about; I'm totally down for you to run Capitalism or Security or something like that

FW--I will default to a policy-making framework unless you tell me otherwise; please don't make miniature DAs on the FW flow, I will be confused and you don't want that

Plan Texts in LD--they are ok; that being said, I'm not afraid to pull the trigger on Topicality

I'm totally fine with traditional LD arguments

I'm ok with speed but, like very judge, make sure you're clear. If you are not clear I will say clear once and then I will just stop flowing.

PLEASE DO IMPACT CALC at the end of the round. It's like filling out my ballot for me

PS impact calc doesn't just mean here's this impact it better than this one. You need to explain/defend your link chain too.

Feel free to ask me any question you'd like too

Good luck!

Ajay Viswaprikash Paradigm

Not Submitted

Philip Wang Paradigm

I debated for 3 years in high school primarily on the local circuit but went to some national circuit tournaments. I now have been helping out as an assistant coach at Auburn for about a year.

Do whatever during the rounds. Sit, stand, roll over, whatever.

I will call for evidence at the end of the round and if I find that you have miscut or misleading evidence, I WILL DROP YOU with low speaks. I've seen it more times than I'd like and I feel like it's my duty as a judge to stop it somehow.

Generally most speed is fine. I’m not a fan of high speed, just cause it makes me work harder. Clarity >>>> speed though. I’ll yell clear twice but afterwards I’ll just put my pen down to let you know you need to be clear. However, if you want perfect speaks, beat your spreading opponent with slow speech.

I’m a big sucker for util debates and love all the weighing and links that result. It’s been a few years since I’ve read any LD philosophical literature, so if you’re running an esoteric “-ism,” be sure to explain it well or I won’t understand it.

Disads: see “big sucker for util debates.” If you wanna run something crazy, please do. I love that stuff.

Kritiks: see esoteric “-ism.” Also, if your K has no alternative I won’t weigh it in the round. I also don’t like affirmative K’s.

Theory: This may be a bit controversial, but I have a high threshold for theory for two reasons. First, no one likes to play games with someone who just whines about the rules the whole time. Second, I think theory is sometimes used as a crutch to avoid substantive debate. Now, if there is actual abuse in the round, feel free to run theory. I’ll flow it and vote on it. But if you run a shell on how your opponent must disclose their AC on some website, buyer beware.

Reading that, it should come as no surprise to you that I default to reasonability. I think theory is probably drop the debater, since if there is actual abuse, you should probably lose. Also, RVIs are probably good to discourage frivolous theory.

Russell Weas Paradigm

I prefer policy arguments over critical arguments, but I will definitely pull the trigger if a K convinces me.

Spreading is good, just slow down for tags and for theory. If I can't understand what you're saying for those I'm not flowing it.

Tech over truth. If an argument is ridiculous explain to me why it's ridiculous.

Debate is an educational activity. Ask me any questions you have about my judge philosophy, RFD, or arguments in debate and I'll be happy to explain. My email is .


Framework is a lens to view arguments through. It tells me how to decide my ballot, but it doesn't write the ballot. A conceded framework is not a round deciding event, but it decides which impacts I vote for.

Donna Yeager Paradigm

8 rounds

I debated in Houston Tx. in high school and college. I was a policy debater. I have coached and taught debate for 30 years now; Policy, Public Forum, and Lincoln Douglas. I have coached and taught at Langham Creek HS in Houston, Tx., Hanover HS and Dartmouth College in Hanover, NH., Wayland HS in Grand Rapids, MI. and now finally at Auburn HS, in Auburn Alabama.

Emory 2020:

I haven’t judged many circuit level rounds this year, I coach one circuit debater and don’t get to see many high level plan debates. This means that in your first speech you should start slow for the first 5 seconds and speed up as you wish from there

Pref chain:

- Plan debate, policy, LARP: 1

- Traditional debate: 1

- Theory: 3

- K debate: 4

- Tricks: 5

- Performance: 5

I am a very flow judge!!! Tech should be true, otherwise you’re lying… So Truth > Tech.


Add me to the email chain:

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS THEN ASK!!! If you aren’t sure you can run something or have a question about my paradigm defaults then asking is the best way to be safe.

I am ok with good spreading, I flow from your speech and will refer to the doc if I missed something or am confused, but clear taglines and authors are important.

I default to the following:

- Neg wins on presumption unless otherwise argued

- Consequentialism for impact calc

Give an off-time road map!!! Every new off case argument will be flowed on a separate sheet of paper!!!

Things I liked in a round:

- Well-developed plans

- Fully linked out DA’s

- Good CP’s

- Proper decorum

- Good FW debate (Rawls, Kant, Hobbes, Locke)

Things I don’t like:

- Performative debate

- High theory K’s

- Spikes, Tricks

- Disclosure theory

- Friv theory

- Bad T/theory shells

- Incoherent spreading

- Speaking for others

- Ptx DA’s

- After round disrespect

- PICs


I don’t disclose for double-flighted rounds, not that hard of a rule, if there is extra time, I might be able to give an RFD. I don’t disclose speaks.


30: I expect you to win the tournament or be in finals (rarely given)

29.5: Finals or high break rounds, I enjoyed this debate and learned something

29: Good debate, should break, close round with one of the above ^

28.5: Good job, room to improve, well executed arg on my do not like list.

28: You weren’t as clear as you could’ve been, the weighing wasn’t the best

27.5: Same as 28 but worse

27: Worse than 27.5 😊

26.5: You made some serious errors, ran something I don’t like or was hard to judge, you spoke awful

26: Worse than 26.5

25.5-25: You shouldn’t go above 3-3, you made a critical mistake and deserve to lose, you were racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, or ableist

My Public Forum judging philosophy will be the same as my asst. coach, Mr. Will Haynes. So thank you Will!

Flow/Speed: I am a typical flow judge. In rebuttals and summaries, please make it clear what argument you're responding to. All turns must be addressed in the following speech, so if you are the second speaker, and your opponent makes a case turn in their rebuttal, you must address this in your rebuttal or else it is dropped. Frontlining can be done in either the rebuttal or summary. I can flow 8/10 on speed. Do not spread. The summary and final focus must be consistent.

Evidence: If an opponent asks for a card, you get one minute to produce it. After one minute, I strike the card from my flow. I will call for cards at the end of the round if I am unclear on the intentions of the author or I have reason to believe it is mis-cut. I will not call for evidence due to washes or lack of weighing.

Crossfire: I do not flow new arguments in crossfire, nor does it have any effect in how I judge the round unless someone is rude, in which case I will deduct speaker points.

Framework: I default to utilitarianism unless another empirically justified framework is offered at the top of the constructive. I enjoy a good framework debate, so do not hesitate to propose a deontological value.

Offense: Under util, I only weigh quantifiable and empirically justified impacts as offense. If you do not quantify, there is no objective way for me to compare impacts at the end of the debate.

Fiat: If the resolution is framed in terms of a moral obligation (should, ought ect.), then I judge the debate based off the costs/benefits of the resolution actually taking effect. Therefore, I do not evaluate feasibility claims that have to do with the inabilities of laws or policies to pass through congress or any other governmental actor unless I am provided with compelling analytical justifications for doing so.

Theory: I believe theory is the best way to correct abuse in a debate round. It is much easier for me to flow theory if it is run in the standard format (A: Interpretation, B: Violation, C:Standards, D:Voters), but I am fine with paragraph theory as long as it is clear and well justified.

Kritiks: I very rarely vote for them, so just keep that in mind before you take that risk.

Speaker Point Scale: These are the criteria I use for determining speaker points. Everyone starts out with a 26. Do these things well to get up to 30.

Come to the round prepared and on time.

Remain calm during crossfire and speeches. Aggression and agitation are not compelling.

Give speeches with a minimal number of "ums" and "likes"

Have a clear organizational structure for your speeches. Signpost and don't jump all over the place on the flow.

Weigh arguments in your rebuttals, summaries, and final focuses. Don't just read a block.

Amy Zhang Paradigm

8 rounds

General: I debated 4 years of traditional LD in highschool. Therefore, not a super big fan of progressive debates.

Speed: Spreading is fine, but if I can't understand it, I can't flow it. Make sure you slow down and are super clear for important points.

Signpost: Please please please. I will not flow if I cannot follow you.

Please, please do impact calc for me!!! I will judge on everything I have written down. Value debate is pretty central to the round.