Warrior War of Words
2018 — Grovetown, GA, GA/US
Richard Bracknell Paradigm
Walter Cotter Paradigm
I am a traditional judge.
Do not spread.
Civility is essential.
I value clear communication. Sign posts and voters are excellent tools.
I value clash. So listen to your opponent and tell me why they are wrong and your side is better.
Give weight to the most important arguments and tell me why they are the most important.
Write the reason for decision for me.
St. Julian Cox Paradigm
I have experience debating Public Forum, and I've judged primarily PF and LD for the past two years.
In terms of speed, I have no issue with spreading so long as you enunciate your words. I can't judge what's incomprehensible.
During crossfire, the education of the round is severely limited if it is just used by a side to list off their contention without allowing for questions. Keep it to question and answer. There is a difference between fully explaining what was asked and running the clock down.
Steven Hahn Paradigm
Morgan Leach Paradigm
First, a little about me...
I debated Public Forum for three years in high school at Piedmont Academy and now am on my third year debating Policy at UGA.
Yes, put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
I expect respect from everyone involved no matter the climate - race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc.
Let's talk PF:
Do you expect everything in the final focus to also be in the summary? Not necessarily - every round is different and comes down to different things, but I think having your main points extended in both is important. By the time of the summary and final focus, your winning points should be obvious (this includes your impact calculus).
Do second speaking teams have to respond to the first rebuttal? Yes, if time permits.
Do first speaking teams have to extend defense in the first summary? Defense, yes. New arguments, no.
Do you flow/judge off crossfire? Yes.
Do teams have to have more than one contention? No.
Does framework have to be read in the constructives? This is a loaded question - if you think you will need framework, include it in the constructive. AT THE LEAST, framework MUST be apart of the rebuttals. Summary or final focus is too little too late to bring up or heavily impact the framework debate.
Speed is fine, off-time roadmaps are encouraged, do not dominate or take over your partner's crossfire, but if needed, I will allow *some tag-teaming. I don't want you to be a sitting duck, but crossfire is the time where judges can see just how much you really know about your case, evidence, and arguments.
Let's talk Policy:
At the end of the day, the debate will come down to who had the most convincing points and who extended them the best. Clash is key, impact calc is key.
K Arguments: I am fine with K arguments, but do not assume that what you are advocating for is clear to all those who are listening. I need to see why the K outweighs staying oncase and why it is beneficial to debate.
DAs: I love me a good disad. Economy DA, Politics DA, any DA. If you can prove to me why the DA outweighs what the Aff can do, then I am all in it.
Topicality: I am completely fine with T args; I think in the chaos they keep the debate centered. But be warned, if you go for T, it must be won in the round.
CPs: Counterplans are fine IF they are not messy. I have seen, gone against, and read some really complex CPs that just don't pan out in the time permitted. If the explanation is not there in the planks and you struggle to add all you are trying to say, you probably shouldn't do it.
Don't get lost in the complexity of what Policy debate is; no matter the format, all debates come down to what the arguments are, how the evidence withstands, and how the debaters themselves carry the case through.
If anyone has any questions or if I left anything out, don't hesitate to ask :)
Good luck to all!
Jennifer Levitt Paradigm
* I prefer a conversational-paced debate. If you are going to spread, do it well. I do not judge what I do not clearly understand.
* I prefer solvency to be used together with philosophy.
* I have been judging for three years, but I am a parent judge. If you are running complicated cases, do not assume I have background to understand all debate terminology or philosophy. Please "unpack" what you mean into language a lay person is sure to understand.
* I generally prefer more traditional debate to very progressive debate. With that said there have been a few times I've voted for a more progressive case, if it was explained well and the debater made the best argument.
* I do not tolerate discrimination (sexism, racism, etc.). You will not win a case I am judging by using philosophical, moral or any other arguments to promote discrimination.
* I do consider cross-X to be part of the judged debate for speaker points. I generally do not judge cross-X for the winner or loser of the debate - therefore, be sure to flow any important points into the round. I do NOT care if you look at each other during cross-X or not.
* Please keep your own time and time your opponent. I do use a timer as well, but have occasionally had a glitch and we want a fair round. Within reason, feel free to complete your sentence once time is up. If an opponent asks a question during cross-X and then time is up, it is your choice if you want to answer that question or not.
* Expect things like eye contact with the judge, voice intonation, covering your face with paper or computer while speaking, nervous habits such as clicking pens/rocking to all be factored into your speaker points.
* I do prefer that you ask if the judge and opponent are ready before beginning. Also, I prefer you give an off-time road map in rounds where it is appropriate.
* Normally, I will vote for any argument if it not addressed by the opponent and is flowed through the rounds. However, if your facts are blatantly false and easily confirmable as false, I will not weigh the argument. Please make sure your research is warranted and accurate.
* I do NOT have preferences on if you debate standing or sitting or if you sit on a particular side.
* If you want to email your cards or constructive to your opponent that is your choice. However, I will not accept emails and only judge what I hear and understand from the actual debate. The one exception is if I feel I need to ask for cases or cards after the round is complete to double check my understanding of key points in order to make the best decision.
Gene Likins Paradigm
Dan Mathis Paradigm
Emily Riggs Paradigm
I am a traditional parent judge. Do not spread. Engage the topic. Clash is very important. I like sign posts and voters. I do not like jargon. To earn my ballot tell me why you have won. Write the reason for decision for me.