Jordan Berry - Loveless Academic Magnet Program High School

Hello!

I have been a coach and judge since 2015. Most debaters over the years categorize me as a traditional L/D judge. My chief weighing mechanism is usually framework (my undergraduate degree is in philosophy), but I can be persuaded to the contrary. I have no value hierarchy. I strive to keep personal views and ballot intervention away from my RFD. I will evaluate only those arguments brought up by the debaters.

Speed is an issue for me. This is primarily an education and communication activity. I highly doubt either Lincoln or Douglas themselves were spreading, and I've never seen spreading in any real-life situation aside from episodes of "Storage Wars." I do flow the round (though not cross), but "winning the flow" isn't the same as winning the round in some cases; this event is supposed to be persuasive and accessible, not a checklist of responses and replies. Thus, I always roll my eyes when one of my debaters complains about "lay" judges: in crafting a case/round, they should receive as much consideration as that ex-policy debater.

Other issues for me: do be respectful. Do engage meaningfully with the resolution. Do be honest. Do have fun.

Break a leg!

jordan.berry@mps.k12.al.us

P.S. All this extinction stuff is just debaters trolling, right?

I debated public forum for four years in high school and currently coach public forum. I frequently judge PF and LD and am fine with speed so long as you are not spreading.

Jefferson State Community College: Speech and Debate Team - 2 years

LD Judge: 4 years

Speed: I am good with any speed as long as you are not spreading. If I cannot follow I will say "Clear" at which point I expect that you slow down, so I can flow the round properly.

PF:

-Do not spread. On a scale of 1-10 for speed I prefer somewhere around 6-7. 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.

-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.

-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.

LD:
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.

Both:
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.

Coaching Experience: None

Background: I have been taking a debate/argumentation class since the start of January, 2019. I am currently a senior, graduating in May from The University of Alabama in Communication Studies. I believe that debate is a great way to convey your ideas and persuade others, by making analytical arguments. I am not concerned with delivery of argument, as long as it is analytical, insightful, and creative. Speaker points will be awarded for presenting a clarity, strategic decision making in the round, and showing clear comparisons for how one side should be preferred. I flow fairly slow, but if I cannot hear you or understand I will interject once with “clear.” I am more apt to decide on arguments throughly explained, so think quality not quantity.

Preferences:

1. Evidence: Evidence must be clearly cited and accessible during the round. I expect you to be able to show me what you showed your opponents during the round if a card is called.

2. Consistency: Consistency from start to finish, picking main points to highlight in the final speech is critical. This means defending main points in your argument and summarizing why it should be decided upon.

New judge.

Prefer speaking speed 4-5

Respect to your opponent.

My experience with debate started in middle school and extended through college. I started debating in the 5th grade for WJ Christian Elementary School and won city championships in 7th and 8th grades. I debated in the LD and NFL formats for Huffman High School for 4 years winning the State Championship as a novice and then two State Championships in NFL debate as a sophomore and junior and then a State Championship in LD Debate as a senior. I won the Deep South District Debate tournament in NFL Debate as a sophomore and junior and in LD as a senior. I attended the National Debate tournament in NFL/Policy Debate as a sophomore and junior and then in LD Debate as a senior. I attended Samford University on debate scholarship and made it to the semifinals as a freshman at the College National Debate Tournament. Debate has shaped my life in many ways. I attended medical school at UAB after college and did all of my additional medical training at UAB. I have practiced medical oncology/hematology for the last 18 years at the Montgomery Cancer Center in Montgomery, Alabama. I still value greatly the skills I attained from debate as I communicate with patients daily regarding life and death issues. I take very seriously the appropriate adjudication of the debates I am asked to judge.

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.

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!

Experience:

Mountain Brook High School Debate (2003-2007)

Mountain Brook Lincoln/Douglass & Policy Debater (2003-2006)

Mountain Brook Public Forum Debater (2006-2007)

As a judge, I want to see debaters that:

Collapse: No one wants to evaluate 100 different arguments at the end of the round. In your closing, pick the arguments that carry the most weight and tell me why you won them.

Weigh Arguments: Tell me what arguments matter the most and why they do. Do this early, and do this often.

Speak Clearly: I don't have a hard limit on speed, but this isn't Policy. If I can't follow, I will say the word "clear" to help you get to where I can flow your round properly. I will not deduct points for calling out "clear," but if I can't follow your argument that can obviously have an impact on the ballot.

Signpost: Before time starts, give us an idea of where you'll be going during your argument. It doesn't have to be all-encompassing or set in stone, but a general idea is very helpful.

Show Respect: Be respectful, not only to me but to your opponent as well. This begins before the first argument goes out, we're here to develop and enjoy ourselves- don't ruin it by being hateful.

Miscellaneous:

Dates: Dates matter with evidence. The first time you use a piece of evidence, drop the date in there for everyone's benefit. If your opponent uses a piece of evidence and doesn't say the date, don't be afraid to ask for it.

Prepare: Be prepared and ready to go. Use the bathroom, preflow, and do whatever else you need to before I get there!

CX: I'm willing to go a little over time in order to allow for an answer. For example: If Aff asks Neg a question with 3 seconds left, I'll allow Neg to give an answer before we call it.

Kritik/Counterplan/Theory: Please do it well if you are going to run it. It is always uncomfortable when someone runs a shell argument that they don't really understand and then falls apart halfway through!

If you need me to clarify any of these paradigms and preferences, or you have a question that I have not addressed, please ask; I want you to know what to expect and feel comfortable going into the round!

Any Questions, feel free to email me- Hayslip@gmail.com

Email: caitlynajones1@gmail.com

Pronouns: (she/her)

Berkeley:

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

John Koo

Debate experience: I did 4 years of LD and Congress in high school (Montgomery Academy)

PF: I know exactly what this debate format is so you don't have to worry that I was mostly an LDer.

Most important thing: be civil. Especially in CX, I know you want to ask and answer, but unless your opponent is simply wasting time, be respectful.

Evidence: Evidence is really key. If you have a lot of cards in your case, please organize them in the proper format and citations. If your opponents or I want to see them, please have them readily available for checking. Unfairly cut or misused cards will immediately be thrown away along with the round.

Signpost: Guide me through the flow. I don't want to search my way through my flow to find what you're talking about. It's more beneficial for you to tell me exactly where to look and what to write, so I have more time to think and analyze what you're saying.

LD:

I like a pretty balanced framework debate. That does not mean you simply focus on your values and never tell me why they are important. Show me direct relations of your criterion to your value, and why your contentions reflect those values. I'm pretty knowledgeable about philosophy and any value that you may use, but if you're doing something unorthodox, remember to explain it well to me.

I think structure is extremely important to debate. Yes getting all the information out is good, but be organized with it.

So:

Signpost. Especially in your 2ARs/1NRs, go down the flow. Tell me where I am supposed to be looking at. Although the same topic, every debate round is different. Tell me where exactly your argument works. Tell me where your opponent's argument doesn't work. I will only judge what you say in the round. I don't assume anything.

Speed. From years of debate on many different levels, I have learned to handle any type of speed. However, always keep in mind that I may miss something you say if you go extremely fast or are unclear. I know especially in those 2ARs there is a lot of information you want to tell me, but please try to be calm and collected.

Arguments. I know CPs, Ks, DisAds, Theories, etc... Thoroughly explain to me why something or your opponent is abusive if you believe that. Although I always leave my personal beliefs out of judging, I am going to try and protect those from a very abusive CP. I will be somewhat biased there when I can see a clear misuse.

Overall, ask if you have any other questions or preferences you want to know. Please be respectful to your opponent. That is the most important thing, and have a good debate round.

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 am a college student at the University of Alabama currently studying argumentation. I have spent the semester debating in class and practicing flowing. I will be flowing the rounds to the best of my ability.

I am a blank slate and will have no opinions when entering the debates. My personal beliefs or knowledge will have not impact on the decisions I make.

I debates I have been a part of, we weigh impacts to determine whether an action should or should not be taken. Make your impacts clear and prioritize impact comparisons.

I terms of evidence, I will not call for evidence unless requested by the opposing team. I will also only do so if the evidence is important to my decision on who wins the round. If you cannot provide proof of evidence upon my request I will strike that particular point from my flow.

Go very slowly! I know what I am doing in terms of flowing, but if you are going too fast I will not be able to keep up. If going too fast, I will hold up my hand to notify you to slow down.

Gabe Witmer Judging Paradigm

Purpose- I will judge the debates based on who can give a better argument. By that, I mean point out flaws in the opposition and expand on how your argument is better than the opposition. I will not judge arguments based on personal beliefs or prior knowledge, I am strictly looking at the content in the argument and what team’s argument is better.

Experience- I am a senior in college studying argumentation. I have flowed a number of debates in class and understand what makes a good argument. With that being said, I will flow each argument to the best of my ability. I have also participated in debates myself.

Likely to Vote on- In debates that I am accustomed to, we look at the impacts and determine whether an action should be taken or not. Therefore, make the impacts your team is presenting clear and to prioritize impact comparison in the arguments.

Evaluating Evidence- I will not call for evidence unless the other team urges me to examine the evidence presented by the opposition. I will also call for evidence if it is in question and a central reason in deciding who won the round.

Speed- Try to slow the arguments down, so I can evaluate each reason with precision and make sure I understand it entirely. If you are going too fast, then there might be critical information I may miss that would lead to benefiting the other team. If a team is going too fast through their argument I will raise my hand to indicate that they need to slow down.

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