Hi, I'm Gillian and I am from James Clemens High School in Madison, Alabama. This is my second year in debate but my first year judging; generally in judging, I am looking for someone who can provide a smooth but intelligible rebuttal. Presentation is important, but never quite equal to content. Additionally, I look for clarity in speaking and will not be able to provide a high number of speaker points for someone who I cannot clearly understand. Speaking slower is ultimately preferable to a higher volume of argumentative material that is unclear.

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.

(my daughter wrote this for me based on what she thinks I know about debate)

General:

Don't read bad args just to pick up an easy ballot or I'll roast you in the rfd about how illogical they are. If the arg is dropped and weighed, I guess I'll still vote on them.

Don't read bad evidence, that's annoying and sneaky.

I like narrative debates! And weighing!

Speed:

I can handle a little speed but definitely don't spread.

Second Half:

Parallelism. I won't vote off of arguments that weren't in both summary and final focus.

Technical stuff:

I understand turns and will vote on them. Usually tech>truth but if you're using oddly technical jargon explain what it is (fiat, topicality,etc). Do not run theory/ks unless you can go slowly and clearly tell me how my ballot functions in the round.

I'm a volunteer judge affiliated with Mountain Brook High School that has been on and off the circuit for 4 years (mainly in policy and public forum).

Debate how you want to but I have a few preferences:

1. Speed is fine just don't spread. I'll take notes on the round but if it's going to be important later say it clearly.

2. Evidence ethics is extremely important. If a card is grossly misconstrued it will be hard for you to win the round.

3. I like to see strategic questions and answers in cross. Obviously, still bring up anything important in cross in later speeches if you want me to vote off of it.

4. I'm more likely to sign my ballot on a clear narrative than poorly explained extensions.

If you paraphrase

I will likely vote you down

Ev! ethics! are! cool!

I am a third year public forum debater at Mountain Brook High School. I have been debating since eighth grade and actually debated at mstoc in my eighth grade year. As for the round I will keep your time but i expect you to keep your own time as well. I expect you to be courteous to your opponents but I will not vote you down for being aggressive in cross. I am fine with speed as long as you are clear. As for the actual debate:

Framework: Framework is a way for me to view the round. I will never actually vote for a team off of a framework. You must win your actual arguments to win the round. If one team has a framework and the other does not, framework does not default to the team that reads it they must win the framework debate. DO NOT READ COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AS A FRAMEWORK.

1st Constructive: I expect a loud clear voice. Cases should be around 4 min ideally but I will not vote you down if you do not meet that time.

2nd Constructive: I expect cards to back up what you are saying and recent evidence is very important. Cards must be cut correctly and ready if I call for them. Speed is fine as long as you are clear.

Summary: Summaries should be where the round starts to collapse into a couple of arguments. Focus on these arguments and why you should win the round. If you decide to go for something in final focus and did not bring it up in summary I will consider it dropped.

Final Focus: Coordinate your final focus with the summary speaker's so that you do not drop something important. Weigh your arguments.

Speaker Points: As long as you are not rude and speak with a clear voice you will get high speaks.

Hey guys! My name is Campbell. I've been debating PF since 8th grade so I am familiar with how it works. I don't have many preferences but here a couple:

1. Speed is fine but don't go so fast that I can't understand you. If I don't understand you, I won't flow your speech

2. I'm not going to keep your own time so that's up to you.

3. Don't just tell me that you've won arguments, explain how you've won them

4. If there is a framework, please tell me how you fit under it

5. During cross, please be civil. I understand it can get heated but you don't have to be mean

Overall, just have fun and try your best!

I'm lay parent judge, but have practiced law for over 25 years. Keep it simple. Cut down on debate jargon, or I won't know what you're saying. If you go too fast, I will not follow you and you will lose. I'd love a good clean traditional debate.

MAKE SURE FRAMEWORK DEBATE IS WELL EXPLAINED

Likes:

Nice and clear presentation

Simple framework debates

Traditional Contentions

Simple Link Chains

On Denuclearization topic, extinction impacts are fine

Good clean warrants

Dislikes:

Progressive Debate

Spreading

Plans

Theory

Ks

CPs

DAs (just call them contentions)

--Good Luck--

Email: Charliehartley92@gmail.com I will give everyone a .1 point speaker boost if I walk in the room and ya'll already have an email thread set up with my email in it ready to send. It looks professional and saves the tournament time.

Debate Background:

3 years of policy debate at Mountain Brook High School 2008-2011.

Policy 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 invented.

Debate is a public speaking activity. Please be loud, clear, make eye contact, have good posture, and do not speak with your hands. I can give great speaker points to debaters that follow these rules. Humor is appriecated, talking down to your opppents is not. Make sure you understand the difference.

Condo. 3 against a basic/big stick aff is about my ceiling. 3 contradictory condo and I can more easily be persuaded to vote on condo.

Process/ Conditions/ consult CPs are the devil, unless you have a excellent 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 against a generic process/ conditions/ consult CPs. You just need an interpretation about a world of debate that excludes these CP’s. "The" PIC maybe the worst CP of all time.

K debate is cheating in policy. Especially K affs (fact). Krtikal literature is obviously very relevant to being educated and ethical, but in debate this lit is bastardized for polemic positions that unfairly tilt debate in their favor for a litany of obvious strategic gains.

As a 2N my favorite last speeches normally had a Disad and some form of case mitigantion either in case D or a Counterplan, but ultimately I will try to evaluate all arguements made in round. If you have any questions not answered here please feel free to ask me before the round begings.

LD Paradigm

I am policy debater at heart. I will flow every word you say. Speed is a weapon in debate. LD is often one big K debate which is fine in LD but I err towards util/consequentialism FW's. I can be persuaded pre-fiat impacts are extra-topical and can be rejected as such (likely not a reason to reject the team). But I do love me a good ol' fashioned value premise throw down from time to time, I must admit. It is the premise.

PF Paradigm

I will reward teams that prioritize evidence and tech in PF debates. I would love for a PF team to step-up to the plate and read/execute on high quality evidence. I will likely call for cards. Hyperlinking is ok, but if you have to google/search for an article after I call for a card I will not evaluate the evidence and will treat it as an analytic.

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

I'm a Senior at Mountain Brook High School and have done Public Forum debate since I was in seventh grade so can understand what's going on and most of the technical terms. I'd say that I prefer a more traditional debate round but most importantly, be respectful and have fun.

My important preferences to keep in mind:

1: Be respectful of your opponents and please do not be rude in cross

2: I don't flow cross so if an important point was made, bring it up in your later speeches

3: I will assume a cost benefit analysis which is perfectly fine unless you tell me otherwise

4: Speed is ok but Public Forum should be accessible to anyone so be clear

5: I don't mind and even encourage teams to call for evidence from the other team but don't overdo it

6: I will keep time during the round but y'all should also. Be clear on when and how much prep you're using

7: Please extend arguments through all of your speeches. If you don't and your opponent calls you out I will have to drop the argument

8: Sign post where you are going with your speech so I know where to flow

9: I encourage off time roadmaps at the beginning of your speeches

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round about anything in my paradigm or that I didn't address

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

I'm a senior and 5th year debater for Mountain Brook High School. I've done PF and Policy.

I can handle speed, but I will always prefer depth of analysis and clarity over speed.

Any argument you make should be warranted. A tag is not sufficient. You must explain why your evidence is true and how your argument works.

Final Focuses should be primarily impact calculus because I need to know why the arguments you are making matter and how your impacts interact with and out way your opponent's.

You must time yourselves, but I will be keeping the official time. DON'T STEAL PREP. I see too many teams do this these days. If you are talking to your partner, someone's prep should be running.

For LD: Having done Policy, I know my way around progressive LD args. I don't love Ks, so you will have to do lots of work to get me to vote on them. Honestly all of my PF paradigm applies to LD.

Speaking clearly and at a speed so that I can understand your argument is imperative. I prefer a debate exhibiting quality over a debate exhibiting quantity. Be kind to your fellow debaters whether in or out of the debate room.

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.

Hello! I am Erica Neumann, and I have judged a few PF debates and helped coach PF. I am fairly flexible in how you present your individual case; however, I have listed a few things below that are particularly important to me when judging a case.

1.) Be civil! Even if you are debating a controversial topic, you should be able to maintain a civil tone and demeanor when speaking with the opposing team. This respect should be extended to your partner as well; remember that you are team! If you are rude or condescending to your teammate, that will hurt your ability to present a unified position.

2.) I have no preference as to whether an off-time road map is provided. What is most important is that the road map is relevant and delivered professionally.

3.) Speak clearly! If you sound like an auctioneer, it will be difficult for me to understand what you are saying, which will obviously not help your argument.

4.) Do not give platitudes. While you may have excellent speaking skills, they will not help your position if your arguments lack substance. Rather, be sure to make use of those warrants and impacts that you have worked so hard on preparing.

5.) Link your evidence. Citing a card that you do not provide context for within your argument is not helpful. Instead, demonstrate that you understand both your position and your evidence.

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.

***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

I am a parent volunteer and ex-attorney. My son has been doing debate for four years. His focus has been PF, but he's recently done some LD. I have judged PF before, but it was pre-COVID. Please watch your speed (Clarity > Speed), and don't be rude or disrespectful. Most importantly, have fun.

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

Speed

Any aggressive argument

(This wasn't made by her so ask any specific questions in round)

The role of my position as a judge is to decide who did the better debating. My ballot is awarded to the team with the best speaking skills, articulation of their arguments throughout the whole round, proper refutation of all their opponent's points, usage of evidence, and comparative argumentation. I default to cost-benefit analysis unless told to do otherwise.

Speed and jargon are a no. Please don't immediately presume I know the intricacies of deep research on the resolution. The point of public forum debate is that you should be able to break down the debate on the resolution for anyone, and convince them why your side is right. Humor goes a long way with me in terms of ethos and speaker points. Being mean or a bully does the opposite.

Be sure to time your own speeches and keep track of prep time. I'll also be keeping time, but there is a speaker point reduction for those who don't do it.

tech>truth: debate is a game

the best way to my ballot is to weigh. weighing is inherently comparative, warrant your weighing and compare impacts/links to each other

run whatever you want; but the more progressive your debate becomes, the more you will have to explain it to me

any speed is good, just be clear

don't give me a soliloquy for your off-time roadmap

for the love of god, give me warrants

please signpost; if I look lost, I probably am

i don’t pay attention to cross; if something important happens, then bring it up in your following speech

do not extend the entire flow

frontline responses

defense is sticky

i vote neg on presumption

if you want it in the final focus, it needs to be in the summary

if we are on a virtual platform, please don’t spread. some speed is okay, but i really value clarity when online

add me to the email chain: crhoades2002@gmail.com

This will be my 5rd year serving as a judge (12th tournament). I have a child who is involved in debate with a focus on PF. I have judged mostly PF but also a number of LD rounds. 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. Finally, while many of these topics are serious discussions, remember to have fun. See you in round!

I’m a flay parent judge and lawyer by trade.

I don’t flow cross at all- if you want me to weigh anything from cross bring it up in the next speech.

One pet peeve- Don’t try and tell me an argument is dropped that isn’t.

I weigh how you tell me to in your Final Focus.

I’ll be voting off my flow.

Speaks come from your presentation.

Tech>Truth

I don’t care how dumb your opponents argument is if you drop it, it counts- be diligent in frontlines and rebuttal arguments.

I appreciate competitiveness, and I’m fine with things getting heated. Racism, homophobia or lack of respect is an immediate ballot drop.

”The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.”

- Neil DeGrasse Tyson

Best of luck and Roll Tide.

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.

I only have one suggestion: assume I know nothing. All of these topics are nuanced and if you assume I know all of the details and think I know what you’re talking about, you are sadly mistaken.

The point of Public Forum debate is that you should be able to break down the resolution for a member of the general public and convince them why your side is right. Debate presuming I don't know the deep intricacies of the resolution.

I award my ballot to the team with the best articulation of their arguments throughout the entire round, refutation of all their opponent's points, usage of evidence, and comparative argumentation. Speed and jargon are a big no. Humor goes a long way with me in terms of ethos and speaker points. Being mean or a bully does the opposite. Respect the line between "competitive" and "overtly hostile." '

Be sure to time speeches and keep track of prep time. I'll also be keeping time, but there is a speaker point reduction for those who don't do it.