For email chains: danbagwell@gmail.com

I was a Policy debater at Samford / GTA at Wake Forest, now an assistant coach at Mountain Brook. I’ve increasingly moved into judging PF and LD, which I enjoy the most when they don’t imitate Policy.

I’m open to most arguments in each event - feel free to read your theory, critiques, counterplans, etc., as long as they’re clearly developed and impacted. Debate is up to the debaters; I'm not here to impose my preferences on the round.

All events

• Speed is fine as long as you’re clear. Pay attention to nonverbals; you’ll know if I can’t understand you.

• Bad arguments still need answers, but dropped args are not auto-winners – you still need to extend warrants and explain why they matter.

• If prep time isn’t running, all activity by all debaters should stop.

• Debate should be fun - be nice to each other. Don’t be rude or talk over your partner.

Public Forum

• I’m pretty strongly opposed to paraphrasing evidence - I’d prefer that debaters directly read their cards, which should be readily available for opponents to see. That said, I won’t just go rogue and vote on it - it’s still up to debaters to give convincing reasons why that’s either a voting issue or a reason to reject the paraphrased evidence. Like everything else, it’s up for debate.

• Please exchange your speech docs, either through an email chain or flash drive. Efficiency matters, and I’d rather not sit through endless prep timeouts for viewing cards.

• Extend warrants, not just taglines. It’s better to collapse down to 1-2 well-developed arguments than to breeze through 10 blippy ones.

• Anything in the Final Focus should be in the Summary – stay focused on your key args.

• Too few teams debate about evidence/qualifications – that’s a good way to boost speaks and set your sources apart.

Lincoln-Douglas

• I think LD is too often a rush to imitate Policy, which results in some messy debates. Don’t change your style because of my background – if you’re not comfortable (or well-practiced) spreading 5 off-case args, then that’s not advisable.

• If your value criterion takes 2+ minutes to read, please link the substance of your case back to it. This seems to be the most under-developed part of most LD rounds.

• Theory is fine when clearly explained and consistently extended, but I’m not a fan of debaters throwing out a ton of quick voters in search of a cheap shot. Things like RVIs are tough enough to win in the first place, so you should be prepared to commit sufficient time if you want theory to be an option.

Policy

[Quick note: I've been out of practice in judging Policy for a bit, so don't take for granted my knowledge of topic jargon or ability to catch every arg at top-speed - I've definitely become a curmudgeon about clarity.]

Counterplans/theory:

• I generally think limited condo (2 positions) is okay, but I've become a bit wary on multiple contradictory positions.

• Theory means reject the arg most of the time (besides condo).

• I often find “Perm- do the CP” persuasive against consult, process, or certainty-based CPs. I don’t love CPs that result in the entire aff, but I’ll vote on them if I have to.

• Neg- tell me how I should evaluate the CP and disad. Think judge kick is true? Say it. It’s probably much better for you if I’m not left to decide this on my own.

Kritiks:

• K affs that are at least somewhat linked to the resolutional controversy will fare the best in front of me. That doesn't mean that you always need a plan text, but it does mean that I most enjoy affirmatives that defend something in the direction of the topic.

• For Ks in general: the more specific, the better - nuanced link debates will go much farther than 100 different ways to say "state bad".

• Framework args on the aff are usually just reasons to let the aff weigh their impacts.

Topicality:

• Caselists, plz.

• No preference toward reasonability or competing interps - just go in depth instead of repeating phrases like "race to the bottom" and moving on.

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.

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!

I debated Policy for 6 years (2014-2020), so I’m pretty much fine with anything. Also did some PF and LD. I’ve also been out of debate for a few years though and have little topic knowledge. Don’t be offensive. I mostly read topical affs and was predominantly policy debater on the neg. I am fine and familiar with Kritiks, but it wasn’t my go to 2NR strategy. I love T debate and theory, but that very much does not mean RVIs or tricks, which I will generally not vote on.

Prep ends when you hit send on the email, not before.

Add me to the Email Chain: beh2024@stanford.edu

Email: caitlynajones1@gmail.com

Pronouns: (she/her)

I have done no topic research. Assume I know nothing

I debated PF for 4 years

• If you want me to vote on it, it needs to be in the summary and the final focus

• Please don’t just yell cards at me. Some analysis please

• If there’s an evidence misconduct problem, I’d rather you point out the issues with your opponent’s interpretation of evidence during your speeches, but I’ll call for a card if you tell me to.

• Any concessions in cross need to be in a speech for me to flow it

• Don't Spread at me. If I need a case doc to follow you, it's too fast.

• I'm not flowing anything after the 10-second grace period

Experience-

Lay parent judge. Judged for three years at local tournaments.

Speed-

I’d prefer that you don’t spread. If thats your style, then go for it but if I don’t get something in the case its on you. Also, slow down for tag lines and author names if possible.

Framing-

Its probably best if your framing is something consequentialist. You can go for philosophical args or narrow frameworks but it needs to be explained more. On framework weighing, I like for there to be offensive reasons to prefer the framework rather than just giving defense to the other persons and saying yours is “moral.” Depending on the framework, you should probably give an explanation of which arguments can and cant be evaluated under it or you’re just going to be wasting your time. Show what arguments weigh the most under the framework and which cant be evaluated.

Casing-

I need some way to weigh between impacts. Tell me how to evaluate the round or I just have two contentions that have no clear winner. Clear voters at the end are also insanely nice and help on weighing between args.

Incase you feel the need to run circuit args-

T- Ill buy it if the aff has some extreme interp of the resolution. It really is more of a reasonability thing, though. If its a traditional round, it doesn’t need to be in shell format.

theory- It needs to be actual abuse to warrant theory. Much of the stuff on T is the same here.

DA- yea, sure. Im more of truth over tech. This doesn’t mean you cant go for nuke args, especially since this topic links to them pretty easily, but it does mean there should be work done on the link.

CP- go for it. There needs to be a net benefit though.

K- probably not the best thing to go for unless its cap. The link and alt need to be extremely clear.

Speaks-

I average between 27-30. A 29 is an expectation that you’ll break and a 30 means it was probably the best round I judged. Anything significantly lower than a 27 means you probably did something immoral (ie. arguing racism good).

Jokes can boost speaks. Especially if you’re in a round you feel is not winnable, you can still make it fun.

UPDATE FOR ALABAMA STATE: I dont really have time to check my disclosure explanation that well. If youre confused, think it doesnt make sense, or are have any concerns, you can email me at jbmccleskey@crimson.ua.edu and I'll get back to you ASAP!

Debate Background

Debated Independently for Decatur Heritage, AL (2019)

• Args I used in high school: https://opencaselist.com/hsld18/DecaturHeritage/JuMc
• If the link does work, the 2018-2019 archive has my senior year args.

B.A. Political Science, UA (2021)

• Alabama Forensic Council and Alabama Debate Society Competitor
• Undergrad Thesis was on the role of Kritiks in the Debate Space

M.A. Public Administration, UA (2023)

• Occasionally coached and judged for Alabama Debate Society

Judging Habits

- Do whatever you want. I dont care if you stand, sit, lay across the desk or whatever in round. I should also be good with most speeds, but if I need you down I'll just keep saying slow until you're at a level I can flow.

- I've engaged well enough with most arguments to become familiar with them, but that doesn't mean you should avoid basic argument structures. I'm most versed on Ks, but that also means I have a decent threshold for them. I'll judge the round based on how you tell me I should :)

- If you're planning to spread, it would be significantly easier for me to flow if you could throw me on the email chain (jbmccleskey@crimson.ua.edu). I keep a decent flow but please don't assume I instantly know which card you're talking about unless you slightly explain it (or its a big factor in the round).

- I believe debate is a training field and an educational activity first-- it has a competitive nature as a game, but should remain ethical and truthful as an educational activity. Essentially, go for whatever route you're comfortable with, but be prepared to defend its utility. This activity can be really elitist and this a route to address it. Even paradigms that try to make this activity more accessible end up adding on jargon that benefits larger programs.

Looking to do Speech/Debate in college?

Let me know. UA has a team that competes in both speech and debate, and a separate organization focusing on providing debate resources and coaching to developing debate programs. Both of these have funding potential and are super accessible no matter your experience level. I can also connect you to some other programs (and just generally like talking about the different spheres of this activity on the collegiate level).

In High School I competed in poetry and extemp. I dabbled in Debate in college for a year and I fell in love with debate. I graduated from West Texas State University with a degree in Speech Communication and Theater Education. I coached and judged Speech and Debate events in Texas in the UIL circuit for 10 years. I judged events for a homeschool/private school group in Huntsville for 2 years. I have coached and judged in the NSDA circuit for 3 years.

1. I am NOT a fan of SPREADING and if you speak so fast that I am unable to flow your arguments, I will put my pen down and I can no longer judge you. Spreading is unnecessary for a well-crafted case.

2. EVIDENCE is very important, and it needs to back up the case you are presenting. I am not opposed to you doing this pragmatically, and I enjoy when you can back this up with real world examples.

3. I will judge this case on your use of evidence, direct clash and speaking style. Did you prove your case, did you present the best case, did you attack your opponent’s case?

I am the debate sponsor at JCIB in Birmingham, AL. I do not have personal experience as a debater and have learned what I know about debate from my students. My main request is that you do not speak at such a quick speed that it is impossible to understand what you are saying. If I can't understand you or follow your speeches, I can't vote on it! I will keep track of time on tabroom but I also encourage you to keep time yourself.

I was a debater through all of middle and high school and have judged plenty of PF rounds. Please be respectful to your opponent, I'm not opposed to assertiveness but within reason.

Debate experience- I do not have any high school/college debate experience, but I have been a sponsor in speech/debate (learned as I taught it). I have judged Congress, PF, LD, and most IE's. I have a BA in History, MEd. in Education, and a MA in History and have taught AP World, AP Euro, regular World History, Contemporary World Religions/Current Events, and regular US History 11th gr. for 19 years.

I do not go in with a bias towards one side or another and will listen to all arguments/contentions, etc. made and typically make my decision on who has convinced me of their case and who has not dropped contentions/points. I like a good clash and substance in the debate; less on theory/policy. I would be classified as more of a traditional LD and PF judge. I like students to have clear contentions and be able to back those up.

Speed: I have never judged Policy and I can see that some policy students have trickled down into the world of LD and even PF. If you spread, you better make sure your opponent can follow your argument and I can follow your argument! Using the strategy of spreading to overwhelm your opponent with information just so you can go back and say that your opponent has dropped your contentions frustrates me. If you have a solid case, there is no reason why speaking at a normal rate of speech would not be preferred.

Respect- Please be kind! I despise when students talk down to their opponents or interrupt them. Some students are still new to debate so they don't need you to crush their spirits. I want everyone to have fun and have a strong, respectful debate.

Disclosure- I do not like to disclose; please don't ask. I will give as much feedback as I can on the judges sheet.

General

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

I do not like abusive arguments however

Speed

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

Framework

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

Time

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

Updated for 2023-2024 Season

Please put me on the speech thread! Thank you.

Email: thelquinn@gmail.com

Titles: Director of Debate at Samford University (AL).

Meta-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 researched.

Debaters are guilty until proven innocent of clipping cards. I follow along in speech docs. I believe it is judges job to police clipping and it is unfair to make debaters alone check it. I will likely say clear though, it's nothing personal.

I keep a running clock and "read along" with speech docs to prevent clipping. At the end of the round, I find myself most comfortable voting for a team that has the best synthesis between good ethos, good tech/execution, and good evidence. I will not vote on better evidence if the other team out debates you, but I assign a heavy emphasis on quality evidence when evaluating competing arguments, especially offensive positions.

Education/Debate Background:

Wake Forest University: 2011-2015. Top Speaker at ADA Nationals my Junior Year. 2x NDT First-Round Bid at Wake Forest. 2x NDT Octofinalist. 2x Kentucky Round Robin. Dartmouth Round Robin. Pittsburgh Round Robin.

Mountain Brook High School: 2007-2011. 3x TOC Qualifier. 2011 Winner of Emory's Barkley Forum in Policy Debate. Greenhill and Harvard Round Robin. Third Place at NSDA Nationals in 2011. Seventh Place NSDA Nationals 2010. Winner of Woodward JV Nationals.

Policy Thoughts:

Tl;dr: Offense/defense, the algorithm, cards are currency. UQ determines link unless otherwise said. Willing to pull the trigger on T/theory.

Flow: Most debaters should make analytics off their flows, especially in digital debate. Conversely, if you include analytics on your speech doc but I do not find you clear but I recognize where you are on your speech doc, I will not consider them arguments.

Condo: Im largely ok with conditionality. I think the best aff args against conditional are against contradictory conditional options. I do not really like the counter-interp of dispo. Im a much bigger fan of CI is non-contradictory conditional options.

• 3 or less non contradictory conditional options is ok to me
• 2 contra condo is fine
• 3 contradictory condo (including a K) and I am willing to vote on contra condo bad.
• For new affs, I think at most 5 contra condo is permissive. Anymore and I think you risk losing on theory.
• I think negs should take the 2 seconds it takes to have a CI that isn't "what we did." "What we did" is not really a good CI in debates.

CP Theory: If the 2AC straight turns your disad, no amount of theory will justify a 2NC CP out of/around the straight turned DA. 2NC CP's vs addons are different and chill/encouraged. Generic Process/ Conditions/ consult CPs cause me to lean aff on theory/perm, unless you have a good 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/perm do CP against a generic process/ conditions/ consult CPs. This is especially true with any Con Con CP. Con Con is the worst.

I hate judge kick. Do you want me to flow for you too? Maybe compose your speech doc while you're at it? I don't give the affirmative random permutations. Don't make me kick your trash counterplan for you.

T: My "favorite" standards are predictable limits (debatability) and real-world context (literature/education). I think a topicality interp that has both of those standards I will err on. Evidence that is both inclusive and exclusive is the gold standard. I tend to be more moderate with reasonability. I am not in the cult of limits. I err aff if I believe your interpretation is "reasonable" and that the negative did not prove you made debate impossible even if their interpretation is slightly better.

Kritikal Debate. I vote off the flow, which means my opinions on K debate are secondary to my voting. And I was 4-0 for Wake BD last year in some big debates against policy teams, so I'm going to vote for the team that I thought did the better debating (But are you Wake BD?). Im not really opposed to kritiks on the negative that are tied to the plan/resolution or kritikal affirmatives that defend a topical plan of action. I think where I draw the line is that I'm not a good judge for more performance based "affirmatives/negatives" that neither affirm nor negate the plan text/resolution. I lean very heavily neg on FW v non or anti-topical K affs. I think a good topical version of the affirmative is the best argument on FW. The role of the judge is to vote for the team who does the better debating. Debate is an educational game we play on the weekend with friends. I will not evaluate arguments that derive from actions/events out of the debate I am judging. Fairness is an impact and intrinsically good. I do not believe the ballot has material power to change the means of production/structures and thinking it does may even be problematic.

Please do not read global warming good. Global warming is real and will kill us all. And I am particularly persuaded by the argument that introducing these arguments in debate is unethical for spreading propaganda and should be deterred by rejecting the team. I'm way more persuaded by inevitability and alt cause args.

I competed in LD in high school, so I am familiar with the process and strategies of debate.

I don't mind if you spread, but if I don't catch something it doesn't work in your favor.

It is also important to me that debaters remember that they are not attacking each other. They are attacking each other's cases. Keep it professional, I will dock your score for making it personal.

If one of your contentions has been thoroughly undermined, let that one go and keep building your next one. Repeating yourself louder doesn't make it relevant again.

And I'm flexible. If you have questions, just ask!

Pronouns: He/him. Email: Pavelshirley@gmail.com add me to the chain

I am an CX debater at Mountain Brook. I am very much a flow judge and will vote entirely only arguments you have explicitly made. I am fine with speed and will listen to pretty much any argument that isn't open racist/homophobic/sexist/ etc.

This is meant to be an LD paradigm, so I'll just go over what I think of stock arguments.

Ks - I like Ks and understand most, but that does not mean you can just stand up and not explain your arguments. I am not a huge fan of High Theory. On the topic of K affs, I'm not a fan. That doesn't mean I won't listen to one but I'd really rather you don't. As a general rule, I expect any aff to advocacy statement whether you defend the resolution or not. Also perms, I really like smart perm debates.

DAs - I really like topic specific DAs. These are some of my favorite debates to watch and while I don't particularly like PTXs, Federalism, or other uber-generic DAs I'll still listen and readily vote on any that make it to the 2NR intact.

CPs - I'm also a fan of CPs. I love topic-specific advantage CPs but that doesn't mean I don't like more run-of-the-mill PICs. I also think embedded net-benefits are smart and will not be dogmatic about having the net-benefit be an explicitly separate DA.

Theory - I love theory. That is different from liking bad theory though. There should a somewhat true abuse claim and all the other generics going into theory. I really don't like answers like "gut check" or something similarly non-responsive. The way I see theory means that I view it as any other arguments, so if an argument is only "this is unfair" with no further warrants. Also layer, just do it. I'll listen.

LD FW - I don't like Phil and I love Util. The smartest thing to do in front of me is to just make it a Util debate and move on.

FW FW- I don't understand the trend in Circuit LD to discount FW against K affs and the like. I say this to mean that I like FW and will vote on it.

I'm not a fan of tricks like "resolved means the Rez has already happened" or including "presume neg" in one card tag and then making it the entire 2NR. I have a pretty low threshold for theory or analytics against these types of arguments.

AFF:

I already mentioned under Ks that I have a strong preference for topical affs. From there I have few preferences. I don't care about having big stick arguments or plan texts I just expect you to be able to defend both. Lastly, I don't like phil affs and I think the affirmative has to defend the implications of the affirmative.

Underview

Everything I have already said applies to Novice Debate but obviously, my threshold for the quality of argumentation is lower. Please don't be mean in CX and don't try to "teach" your opponent in round.

If you mention my paradigm to me it proves you read it, so I'll immediately give you 1 extra speaker point.

please settle disclosure conflicts prior to the round

grow as a person, be respectful, and have fun!

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.

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 russdebate@gmail.com .

LD:

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.

I'm a former policy debater from Samford University and started debating as a novice my first year in college (2016). I qualified to the NDT twice (2017-2018, 2018-2019). I spent my last year in college coaching Novice and JV teams at Samford. I am currently a 3L in law school.

Update for August 2022: Hi! This is my first-time judging debate in a while, so please realize that I may not have the deepest topic specific knowledge. Please take time to explain out your arguments and don't assume that I've done prior topic specific research. 

I'm very much a "you do you" type of judge and want the debate to be what the debaters want it to be about, that said I do have some preferences:

For the Neg:

1. Disads

As a former 2N, I love disads, but I'm going to be skeptical of your ability to win the disad if your uniqueness and link work isn't done well throughout the entire debate. Impact calc is your best friend, in the 2nr I want you to write my ballot for me and tell me why your link chain is much more probable than your opponents and why your impact turns the case debate.

2. CPs

I'm not particularly persuaded by Aff claims that the CP should be textually competitive, and err on the side of functionally competitive. If the CP has multiple planks I want a clear explanation of how each one functions (or how they function together) at some point in the debate, so many debaters don't synthesis their CP planks to work together which ultimately ends up hurting them in the debate. As far as 50 states goes, the Aff is 100 % right! 50 state fiat isn't the most real world model of education, however, as a 2N I can definitely be persuaded by the arg that it's important to test federal vs. state action---just make sure that these arguments are well drawn out if the debate comes down to 50 states fiat.

3. K debate

All too often the alt isn't clearly explained. While I would definitely vote on "we prove the aff is bad even without the alt," you'd really have to be winning case turns arguments which ultimately makes more work for you. It's best to work with an alt that you are familiar with and can clearly explain with well-articulated links to the case. I try to interfere with the debate as little as possible, so even if I understand the literature base you're working with, I'm not going to do the work for you if you don't fully explain your arguments or develop them.

4. Topicality

It's really important that you win your interpretation though explaining why it is comparatively better than the Aff's CI. It's a good practice to include a list of topical versions of the affirmative that the aff could easily have adopted. Also, I want to see good impact work done in the 2NR (what ground you lost, how they over or under limit etc & why those things matter).

5. FW

Win the TVA debate and I'm 89% convinced you'll win my ballot. If there is a TVA that solves all your offense and gives the Aff the ability to debate the things that they want to debate, that's an easy neg ballot. BUT you need to do the work for me and do impact work in the 2NR that explains what ground you lost (and it needs to be more than "I couldn't run my econ da").

6. Final Tips

A) Clarity over speed

B) When the debate is too big in the 2NR, the neg often loses

C) If the Aff reads add-ons in the 2AC, impact turn them and make the debate fun :)

D) 1NRs should be offensive not defensive, it's a strategic time to read lots of cards because the aff usually focuses more on the 2NC.

For the Aff:

1. For Policy Affs

A) Be topical, or be really good at debating topicality--I'm going to err neg in a debate that you're not winning the topicality debate. Persuasive counter interpretations are a good thing to have in your toolbox and explaining why your interpretation is comparatively better (for debate, for this round etc.) is a must.

B) Impact calc---write my ballot in the 2AR

2. For K Affs

I think that it is helpful for K aff's to be germane to the resolution, it makes it harder for the neg to win aspects of the FW debate (if it is a K vs policy debate) and increases the nuance level of the debate.

A few final things

1. Pronouns are very important, please be respectful and ask the other team their preferred pronouns before the debate starts and adhere to those throughout the debate.

2. Microaggression and rudeness will result in your speaker points being docked, please keep the debate civil and respectful.

I prefer a clear, evidenced-based debate.

Don't let my experience fool you into thinking I like fast, jargony debates.

Use an email chain - include me (lizannwood@hotmail.com) on it, and be honest about the evidence. Paraphrasing is one of my biggest pet peeves. (Post-rounding and making me wait for endless exchanges of evidence are the others).

I will leave my camera on, so you can see me. You can trust you have my full attention, and if connectivity issues affect any of the speeches, I'll audibly interrupt you and stop the timer till connections improve (within reason, of course).

If the timer is stopped, no one is prepping.

Avoid talking over each other online -it makes it impossible for your judges to hear either of you.

Don't be rude or condescending. You can be authoritative while also being polite.

Experience:

Mountain Brook Schools Director of Speech and Debate 2013 - current

Mountain Brook High School debate coach 2012-2013

Thompson High School policy debater 1991-1995