Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament

2019 — AL/US

Krissie Allen Paradigm

I am a former attorney and former assistant debate coach for LD. In all cases of judging, however, I prefer sound arguments that are clearly and concisely communicated.

Barbara Allen Paradigm

I debated for 2 years in PF at Auburn High and graduated in 2018.

FOR ROUND:

I would describe myself as more of a flow judge. If I don't have it down on my flow, I won't be able to weigh it. If you think it is important, keep bringing it up. That's the easiest way to ensure that I have it on my flow and that I can carry it across. If something is dropped and then brought back up in the summary or final focus, I will be annoyed. You should carry things you find important all the way through the round, not just randomly bring things back up. I am also a HUGE lover of signposting. I want to be able to follow you all the way through your arguments. This makes it easier for me to write your ballot. Provide me with clear paths to why you win the debate. Tell me what your impacts are and why they matter. Summary and Final Focus should be parallel to each other. If something important happens in cross fire, bring it up in a speech because I do not flow cross fires. RESPECT EACH OTHER IN CROSS! I cannot stress this enough. There's a difference between aggressive cross fires and abusive cross fires. We're all here to learn, remember that. Important to note: unless told to accept and weigh otherwise, I will default to a cost/benefit analysis framework and weigh all impacts according to that.

SPEAKS:

Speak clearly and at a good pace. I always prefer clarity over speed. If it gets too fast, I'll begin to miss things and that will hurt you.

I'm not super picky with speaks. Just be yourself and present your arguments in the clearest way possible and you'll get good remarks from me. Don't panic if you look at me and I'm not looking at you, I'm flowing. Just keep talking to me.

tl/dr: speak clearly and tell me where you're going with something and why it matters more in round

Kristin Berexa Paradigm

Not Submitted

Noah Biblis Paradigm

Background: I debated PF at Auburn High School for three years. I am currently a sophomore at Auburn University. This is my second year judging.

Speed: I believe that spreading undermines the core values of PF debate. If a debater spreads, I will not flow it.

Framework: I default to Cost-Benefit in the absence of a framework. I am not a huge fan of framework heavy debates.

Crossfire: I do not flow crossfire. Any points made in crossfire must be brought up in a speech for me to weigh it in the round. If debaters are rude during crossfire it will be reflected in their speaker points.

Evidence: If debaters cannot produce evidence in less than a minute, I assume that they do not have the card. I will ask for cards after the round if I am not clear on the intentions of the author or believe that the card was miscut.

Catherine Boyd Paradigm

Not Submitted

Phillip Boyd Paradigm

Not Submitted

Brad Coltrane Paradigm

I prefer clarity to speed.

I prefer a well-reasoned argument to number of cards.

I prefer a team that listens to and responds to the other side's argument appropriately.

Ryan Curtsinger Paradigm

I debated for 3 years at Auburn High School in Public Forum. I graduated in 2018.

I am a flow judge. No spreading. Teams may frontline in summary and rebuttal. If something is not in your summary, it will not be weighed in final focus.

I do not weigh any arguments made in crossfire, but speaker points can be deducted if a team is unprofessional.

I weigh impacts under a cost/benefit analysis unless another framework is given and I am convinced to weigh under said framework. Your voters must be quantifiable and directly weighed against your opponent's in final focus in order for me to vote fairly.

The main things I focus on for speaker points are:

Thorough understanding of evidence and arguments (no card dumping)

Clear, calm presence in speeches and crossfire

Organization and signposting down the flow

Mandy Golightly Paradigm

Not Submitted

Denise Grisham Paradigm

I flow rounds. Therefore, I like clear contentions and off time road maps. Since I am not great with SPREAD, providing the road maps helps me fill in my flow to verify that all contentions on both sides were addressed. However, regardless of how fast you speak, clarity is very important. When using cards that you have for your arguments, I favor up to date resources. Cross fires should be civil. I listen for who avoids answering the specific question and your ability to deliver the information when asked for a card.

Jacob Hales Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Elizabeth Harris Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Hadley Hitson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Tommy Jordan Paradigm

questions/email chain - tommy.policy@gmail.com

Coach for Riverwood, former debater at West Georgia

I really don't have too many preferences for debates. I will vote on pretty much anything, as long as it is warranted and packaged well. The following are just random thoughts I have

Policy

T: I love T. Competing interpretations first. Aff teams need to explain why they are reasonably topical. Neg teams need to give me a clear story of their understanding of the topic and how the aff violates that.

Theory: I will not judge kick. Make your own decisions. If its just 2 condo advocacies then that's not the worst, (though I will vote on it) 3 or more and you are pushing your luck. I have no opinions on pics/piks. Multiple conditional planks are very bad.

Clash of civilizations: No plan affs should respond to the rez, even if you say no. The k should link to the aff. I am very sympathetic to presumption in a lot of these debates, and under-explained or confusing alts/solvency mechanisms are not going to go well. I am unsure whether fairness is an impact or not, so neg teams need to spend time on it.

PF:

No need for off-time road-maps or clarifications about the topic, I am familiar with it.

I disclose, and I expect you to take notes on my RFD

I don't like shaking hands

Framework: Can either be in the constructive or the rebuttal. It should be in the final focus if you want me to vote off it.

Evidence: I like cards a lot. They're handy, convenient, and easier to read. You don't need evidence to win a claim, but that claim needs to be well warranted.

The team that first uses an email chain in front of me will receive the highest speaker points. Evidence sharing and disclosure is good, and I will be able to give a better RFD.

Theory: I will allow some as responses to arguments. If a teams arguments do not connect at all to the rez, then the other team should discuss predictable limits on research and a fair burden of rejoinder.

I think the second rebuttal should respond to the first rebuttal, and I think the first rebuttal should include a number of preemptive arguments that you assume will be read in the round. Use their contentions, their cross-fire questions, and your knowledge of the topic to predict what they will run and base your defense around that. Most case defense is meaningless repetition at best and I don't bother flowing a lot of it. Add-ons are fine, but only in the rebuttal.

The summary should be your last refutation of their points and the final focus should be framing, impacts, and writing the ballot. This means not everything has to be in the final focus, but offensive arguments do.

Cross-fire: I pay attention. Don't turn it into a shouting match. It is binding.

Adam Kern Paradigm

Not Submitted

Hans Koehler Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jeffrey Miller Paradigm

Jeffrey Miller
Director of Speech & Debate at Marist School in Atlanta, GA (2011-present)
Director of Debate/Asst Director of Debate, Fayette County High School in Fayetteville, GA (2006-2011)

**New for 2019**

Strike me if you're not going to read cards. These are cards. (Thanks Christian Vasquez for the link) Two reasons for this - a) I am sick of having a "recess" during the debate for you to take 20 minutes finding a card you just spoke into the debate; b) I am sick of calling for cards to find that they don't match what you say. It is not hard to adapt to this standard if you do research. If you don't do research, you probably don't want me as a judge anyways.

What does this mean? In your constructive and in your rebuttal, the arguments you make should be carded and exact quotes from the author. Yes, this means you will make less arguments in the rebuttal - that is better. Card dumps are not productive for this activity. Making fewer, smarter arguments in the rebuttal will help you long term.

So what happens if we don't adapt or no one in the debate adapts? If a situation arises like the two instances above (that is, me calling for cards to clear up confusion around warrants/extrapolations made in the debate, or you can't produce evidence in a timely manner), you will lose speaker points and the debate if the evidence is egregiously miscut.

**The Rest**

Debate is hard. I expect every debater to work hard before, during and after each tournament. Working hard means cutting cards and doing research on the topic. I expect debaters to not search for shortcuts to make this easier - doing your own research and cutting your own cards will pay dividends in all of your debates. In debates I judge you, you should expect I work hard to evaluate the debate and make the best decision possible. That's my guarantee to you.

Since Public Forum is a research based activity, I expect debates to be more about evidence usage and execution than persuasive speaking. If I expect debates to be about evidence usage, the prerequisite to this is having evidence and using it. I expect all five participants in the round (myself and the four debaters) to be well read on the topic and flow the debate. You should expect me to give you constructive feedback on the ballot as well as in round after the debate.

In debates, speeches build off of each other. It would be weird if we engaged in a communication activity where we ignored what the other person did right before our speech - that's why the second rebuttal must respond to the first rebuttal and so forth. Consistency is vital in debate therefore this expectation continues into the second half. Arguments that you extend in the final focus must be in the summary.

How do I define good evidence ethics?

Every card you read within a debate should be cited (by author, not institution) and be available (almost immediately) within context for your opponent to read. Within context does not mean full text, but the full paragraph of the cited line. (Asking for the full text of the study is dumb/waste 96% of the time, because you have 2 minutes of prep and I'm sorry you don't have enough time to read the full text. I understand sometimes you want to read the conclusion, but you still can't do that within the time limits of this event for more than 1 card usually.)

Teams who cannot quickly exchange evidence should not pref me - please strike me.

Don't lie or blatantly misrepresent about your evidence, I will drop you whether or not the argument is made in the round. I define lying or blatantly misrepresenting evidence as excluding key phrases that are in the text of the document that contradict your point, using portions of evidence to make arguments the authors do not intend, etc. Indicts are not lies or misrepresentations, they're arguments. Cards that are poorly cut/don't make a good argument are just not persuasive. Don't ruin the game, it's really fun when done correctly.

Come to the debate prepared and you won't have a problem.

What is my speaker point scale?

Speaker points are earned for the arguments you make in the debate. Every debater in every round starts at a 28.0. I will move up/down on a scale with steps of 0.1 and not 0.5. You're probably not going to get a 30 from me as that means you were truly perfect. Making smart, strategic arguments is going to maximize your points from me.

TOP SPEAKERS OF THE YEAR (29+)

Thomas Gill – 29.5 (Round 6 @ Kentucky)
Francesca Lupi – 29.4 (Round 9 @ Ivy Street RR)
Jacqueline Wei – 29.4 (Round 8 @ Ivy Street RR)
Jack Johnson – 29.4 (Round 6 @ Kentucky)
Morgan Swigert - 29.3 (Round 3 @ NDCA)
Ryan Jiang – 29.3 (Round 9 @ Ivy Street RR)
Daniel Fernandez – 29.3 (Round 6 @ Kentucky)
Noah Kaye – 29.2 (Round 6 @ Kentucky)
Izzy Wu - 29.2 (Round 3 @ NDCA)
Jennifer Lin – 29.1 (Round 8 @ Ivy Street RR)
Noah Kaye – 29.0 (Round 4 @ Blake RR)

SPEAKER POINT AVERAGES

Kentucky – 117.4 (4 debaters, 29.4 average)
Valley – 222.9 (8 debaters, 27.9 average)
Holy Cross – 444 (12 debaters, 27.8 average)
Bronx – 554.4 (20 debaters, 27.7 average)
Apple Valley – 558.9 (20 debaters, 27.9 average)
Blake – 107.5 (4 debaters, 26.8 average)
Blake RR - 227 (8 debaters, 28.4 average)
Ivy Street RR – 334.4 (12 debaters, 28.7 average)
North GA Districts - 220.9 (8 debaters, 27.6 average)
St. James - 258 (10 debaters, 25.8 average)
NDCA - 447.8 (16 debaters, 28.0 average)

NUMBER OF DEBATES / SIDE SPLIT

UNCLOS – 29 debates (17-12 AFF)
Pharma – 7 debates (6-1 AFF)
Debt – 12 debates (7-5 AFF)
Saudi Arabia - 4 debates (3-1 AFF)
India - 6 debates (1-5 AFF)

Ozair-Ahmed Patel Paradigm

I am okay with any speed.

Speak your contention very clearly at the beginning of your points, I prefer off time roadmaps.

Time yourself and tell me loudly when you are starting.

Keep your own prep time, inform me that you are taking prep and tell me how much time was taken after.

Know all the speech times so we can avoid confusions and get through the round fast.

If a coin flip is required, the debaters will flip and decide and inform me after which side they are on and speaking order.

No preference on desk arrangement or how CX is done.

Kevin Pham Paradigm

***No prior debate experience (lay judge), however, been judging speech and occasionally public forum for the past 3 years

- state your framework (if you have one) at the beginning of your debate

- when you state your contentions, make sure you state them clearly

- off-time roadmaps are helpful

- prefer no spreading, but keep in mind I can't flow towards you if I can't understand/hear you

- prefer you keep your own times

Lynda Lee Purvis Paradigm

I am a lay judge. I was a math professor and prefer clear, quantifiable evidence. I don't handle speed too well and appreciate quality over quantity. Signposting is important. Cross fire must be civil. If evidence cannot be produced within a minute of the request, I will not weigh it. You must bring up something from cross in your next speech for me to weigh it. I am not a fan of frameworks except cost-benefit.

Maya Quinn Paradigm

Not Submitted

Audrey Quinn Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Ryan Short Paradigm

The Deep South Districts will be my third time judging a PF tournament. I have a child who is involved in debate with a focus on PF. I understand that speed is important to presenting all of your ideas on the topic, however, speed without clarity may lead to confusion or my inability to evaluate the argument. I also feel like all competitions should reflect good sportsmanship and be civil in nature. I prefer to have factual information to substantiate your case and support your argument. Please weigh in summary and final focus and make sure to present all of your arguments and analysis prior to the final focus. See you in round!

Angel Sims Paradigm

Not Submitted

Isaac Sours Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Melissa Stewart Paradigm

Not Submitted

William Taliaferro Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Jennifer Vines Paradigm

Not Submitted

Elizabeth Walton Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Becca Weatherford Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Anne Mitchell Welch Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Janey Whitney Paradigm

Not Submitted