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.
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.
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
Noah Biblis Paradigm
Background: I debated PF at Auburn High School for three years. I am currently a junior at Auburn University studying economics and political science. 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
Phillip Boyd Paradigm
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
Denise Grisham Paradigm
I flow rounds. Alerting me to clear contentions and off time road maps assists me in completing my flows. I am not great with SPREAD, in fact, if you choose to SPREAD, I will probably stop flowing and just listen. I favor up to date resources and focus mostly on the year of the evidence. Cross fires should be civil. I generally look to typical speech characteristics when determining speaker points, such as speaking with clarity and articulation. I also consider the general characteristics of giving a speech such as how you present yourself through your demeanor both individually and as a team, as well as with your opponents.
Jacob Hales Paradigm
Elizabeth Harris Paradigm
Hadley Hitson Paradigm
Tommy Jordan Paradigm
questions/email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
Coach for Riverwood, former debater at West Georgia
You do you. I do not care. I will vote on pretty much anything, as long as it is warranted and packaged well. The following are just random thoughts.
You are not allowed to send more than three cards in the body of the email.
For your event, see below
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. I have no opinions on pics/piks or condo. Multiple conditional planks are very bad.
K stuff: No-plan affs should respond to the resolution, 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 teams need to spend time on it.
More framework debaters should just go for the object of the resolution as topicality. Way too many planless teams depend entirely on state bad to win the debate, and I will happily vote on a DCS/FMS T.
I am very uncomfortable in anti-blackness debates where there are no black debaters. I find these debates can become quite racist, quite fast.
Teams that use an email chain will receive boosts to their speaker points. Evidence sharing and disclosure is good, and I will be able to give a better RFD. I absolutely hate the current model of sharing in PF. I will be happy to set it up and answer any questions.
No need for off-time road-maps or clarifications about the topic.
I disclose, and I expect you to take notes on my RFD: You only get better with honest feedback and taking notes on said feedback. Feel free to post-round me or ask questions of my decision.
I don't like shaking hands
Most 'voters' I hear aren't real voters.
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. Framework needs to be a tool to contextualize the round. It is not an auto-win.
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.
Generic Thoughts: 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.
Adam Kern Paradigm
Hans Koehler Paradigm
Jeffrey Miller Paradigm
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)
Updated for 2020-2021 and Online Debate
Please add email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org to the email chain. This should be started in the tech time.
Both teams should use it and send the constructives at a minimum. I am fine with constructives being sent after they are read in the debate. Please call the email chain something real like "Kentucky Round 1 - Marist VL vs Marist HN." If you read cards, you should send the cards in the order they are read. If you paraphrase, you should send your paraphrasing and the cards that you paraphrased in the order that you read.
some major bullet points adapting to me:
- i prefer you read cards. this doesn't mean i won't evaluate paraphrasing and it doesn't mean that i'll automatically drop you on paraphrasing bad theory it just means that better arguments are made by the experts you quote in your evidence than your interpretation of the experts. i wouldn't waste a strike on me if you paraphrase but still cut cards.
- speeches build off of each other. everything in the final focus should be in the summary. second rebuttal should respond to first rebuttal.
- made up jargon is bad. clarity of impact is not a thing.
- i prefer substantive debates to theory debates. i really am not a fan of theory. i have strong beliefs in how debate should be done, but i have stronger beliefs in learning about topics. read theory if you must, and I'll obviously evaluate it - but i do prefer a debate about the topic.
- i value hard work. Debate is hard. It's rewarding because its hard. The debate you have in front of me should a representation of your hard work you spent preparing for that debate.
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 Individual Events and occasionally Public Forum for the past 4 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
SPEAK SLOWLY and make eye contact!!!!!
Flay, but more lay than flow
As long as you're speaking at a normal rate and explaining everything simply, you should be fine.
I don't like long link chains or complex frameworks.
Time yourself, please.
Definitely truth over tech.
Signposting is good
I'm listening to cross but every important concession needs to come up in the speech after.
Things I don't want to see
Rudeness in cross
Any aggressive argument
(This wasn't made by her so ask any specific questions in round)
Maya Quinn Paradigm
Audrey Quinn Paradigm
Ryan Short Paradigm
This will be my 2nd year serving as a judge. 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
Isaac Sours Paradigm
Melissa Stewart Paradigm
William Taliaferro Paradigm
I am a pretty relaxed judge. Here are a list of things I prefer:
1) Concise, articulate speeches. You don't have to necessarily machine gun out your arguments. Hopefully you have boiled them down to clear and concise terms so that your objective judge can understand your arguments without having to dive into deep explanations.
2) Remain poised. I prefer that you do not speak with your hands. I understand this may be a natural reaction to emphasizing your speeches.
3) In cross, If time expires as a question is asked, I will allow the team being asked the question to articulate a response.