Although I have never debated during my high school years, my sister is a debater so I am familiar with a few terms and techniques.
Do I have any preferences? Yes, I do.
Speed
I am a new judge so PLEASE refrain from spreading! If I can’t keep up it’ll be hard to understand the information I am being given.

Argumentation
I am looking for a debate not just who can speak the best. So with that being said:

Do not bring up any new arguments or ideas not made prior to the summary speech.

If your opponent(s) drop or conceded to an argument let me know. Don’t expect me to catch every single statement made. I am still new to this.

Extend your arguments.

I am not a fan of Ks and theories. I have never witness one, so I will not know how to judge one.

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.

About me

I am a Grady High School parent who has judged Public Forum rounds at three tournaments over the past two years.

I appreciate sound logical reasoning and clear, effective communication. I am OK with moderately rapid speech, as long I can understand, but I prefer clarity over speed and the volume of content presented.

How I weigh rounds

This being PF, I place significant emphasis on your rhetorical ability, and I am not an overly technical judge. I'm not a strict flow judge; countering your opponent's contentions is important, but a dropped argument doesn’t necessarily mean you’ve won the round. I am well read in history and current events, but I will judge from a tabula rosa perspective.

You will get my ballot through:

1. Strong and articulate conveyance of ideas

2. The ability to calmly and clearly explain all of your arguments without just reading precut cards and tag lines.

3. Quality of your arguments over quantity

4. Just make reasonable arguments and you’ll be fine. I naturally weigh impacts more on probability than extremity.

5. I emphasize logos over pathos and ethos but they are all important. Utilize them all well and I’ll be very happy

I will not call your evidence up, but I will consider evidence quality is when it comes down to a random blog vs the UN. I have a healthy skepticism of statistics, so--although I like to hear quantitative arguments--just quoting some statistics won't necessarily convince me.

The logic that you present has to be sound. Just because you find an "expert" to say something doesn’t mean I’ll buy it. Roadmaps are nice, but I probably won’t understand if you use debate jargon to explain which arguments you’re addressing. Just tell me in normal English.

Also, it is probably worth noting that double binds are a voting issue if i notice them, even if your opponent doesn’t point them out.

It may be risky for you, but I'll try to open minded if you decide to philosophically challenge the fundamental assumptions of the resolution or your opponent's contentions. Such an argument would still need to appeal to a pragmatic citizen judge.

Framework

I am not overly concerned with framework, and I'm OK if you don't present one; I will utilize cost-benefit analysis or an on-balance framework if you don't provide me with an alternative. I am OK with frameworks of most types, but please explain to me why I should prefer your framework if it is key to your argument. I would rather hear impact arguments than a lot of unnecessary discussion on framework.

Burden Interpretation

Both sides have equal and opposite burdens, so please defend whole resolution. No plans or counter plans.

Speaking Points

No spreading. Stay civil, but don't be afraid to be assertive and direct. Remember that you are trying to convince a citizen judge. A bit of controlled passion is appreciated, but it's mostly about how clear, articulate, and persuasive you can be.

Arguments I don't Judge

I don't like tricks, theory, or extreme kritiks because they take away from the substance of the debate. The point of PF is to educate people about the topic of the resolution and these styles of debate prevent that.

Began judging in autumn 2017. Mostly do PF, but occasionally LD and BQ.

Looking for well-reasoned arguments supported with quotes and evidence. Tend to be wary of observational data that can only show associations, but not causation.

I can listen fairly quickly, but prefer students not to speak too fast. Like direct clear speaking, but not loud.

Generally I feel the "Aff" has the burden of convincing me of their case. If I feel the round is something like a tie, I defer to the "Neg."

I also want each team to tell me under what criteria they should win the case. Something like: "We believe that the scenario that results in a more peaches grown in Georgia should win the round, and we will argue that affirming the Resolution will result in higher peach production."

* Quality of argumentation

* I don't like people getting angry, personal, or condescending during debate

I look for rational, linear argumentation. Please do not advance contentions/make arguments without providing adequate warrant/evidence. Please avoid negating your own argument(s) with circular or incomplete warrants/reasoning. Please do not abuse your opponent. Civility will gain much more than overly agressive pursuit. Spreading is perhaps fine, but it had better consist of completed arguments (claim AND warrant) rather than scatter gun approaches designed as insurmountable "gotcha" gimmicks to merely trap your opponents into "dropping" arguments. If your claims and warrants don't actually WORK, then I'm highly unlikely to count them as actual arguments, and your opponent cannot drop arguments that weren't completed on your part. Also, if your speed is so rapid that I cannot flow it, then those are arguments you didn't successfully make, and which your opponent cannot actually "drop." Please do not present me with "theater of the absurd" contentions that are off topic or so bizzarely twisted that they are abusive to your opponent. Such tactics will not be rewarded as voters. Off time road mapping is, to me, highly suspect, as it can quickly appear to be an attempt to abuse the time constraints and thus abuse one's opponent, and leaves an overall bad taste in my mouth (not to mention in the mouth/mouths of your opponent/opponents). If you just MUST off time road map, then, of course, you will want to keep it to a minimum, .... but be aware that really ANY of it appears to me to be suspect/abusive. Please contain your claims and warrants to terms and phrases whose definitions you FULLY understand, and with which you are comfortable and fluent in pronouncing. Just because it is on the card doesn't mean it can't seriously break up your flow if you mis pronounce it or wholly or partially misunderstand all the implications it has. DO flow your opponents' arguments carefully, and feel free to turn claims that aren't warranted, or that are poorly warranted. Being able to so do with terms used by an opponent who clearly doesn't understand ALL implications, without being a wiseacre about it are often rewarded in voting.

Educational Background:

Georgia State University (2004-2007) - English Major in Literary Studies; Speech Minor

Augusta University (2010-2011) - Masters in Arts in Teaching

Georgia State University (2015-2016) - Postbaccalaureate work in Philosophy

Revelant Career Experience:

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2011-2015) Grovetown High School

LD Debate Coach (2015-2018) Marist School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2018-2022) Northview High School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2022-present) Lassiter High School

Public Forum

Argue well. Don’t be rude. I’ll flow your debate, so make the arguments you need to make.

Policy

I haven't judged a lot of policy debates. I'm more comfortable with a little slower speed since I don't hear a lot of debates on the topic. I'm ok with most any time of argumentation, but I'm less likely to vote on theory arguments than K or Case arguments. Add me to your email chains.

Lincoln Douglas

I appreciate well warranted and strong arguments. Keep those fallacies out of my rounds.

If the negative fails to give me a warranted reason to weigh her value/value criterion above the one offered by the affirmative in the first negative speech, I will adopt the affirmative's FW. Likewise, if the negative offers a warranted reason that goes unaddressed in the AR1, I will adopt the negative FW.

I appreciate when debaters provide voters during the final speeches.

Debaters would probably describe me as leaning "traditional", but I am working to be more comfortable with progressive arguments. However, I'll vote, and have voted, on many types of arguments (Plans, Counterplans, Ks, Aff Ks, and theory if there is legitimate abuse). However, the more progressive the argument and the further away from the topic, the more in depth and slower your explanation needs to be. Don't make any assumptions about what I'm supposed to know.

Debates that don't do any weighing are hard to judge. Be clear about what you think should be on my ballot if you're winning the round.

Speed

If you feel it absolutely necessary to spread, I will do my best to keep up with the caveat that you are responsible for what I miss. I appreciate folks that value delivery. Take that as you will. If you're going to go fast, you can email me your case.

Disclosure

I try to disclose and answer questions if at all possible.

Cross Examination/Crossfire

I'm not a fan of "gotcha" debate. The goal in crossfire shouldn't get your opponent to agree to some tricky idea and then make that the reason that you are winning debates. Crossfire isn't binding. Debaters have the right to clean-up a misstatement made in crossfire/cross ex in their speeches.

Virtual Debate

The expectation is that your cameras remain on for the entirety of the time you are speaking in the debate round. My camera will be on as well. Please add me to the chain.

Axioms

“That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” — Christopher Hitchens

”There are three ways to ultimate success: The first way is to be kind. The second way is to be kind. The third way to be kind.” — Mr. Rogers

Contact: jonwaters7@gmail.com