Danae Barkocy - She/her - dbarkocy@trinity.edu

GENERAL:

• Howdy! :) I’m a current college senior who debated for Leander for three years. My two main events were LD and Extemp, but I’ve also dabbled in CX and UIL congress and have done a fair amount of interp. I’m a tab judge as far as argument choice, but as always you need to explain links/solvency/etc very well and tell me the main issues you want me to vote on.
• If there’s anything you would like me to call you (name/pronouns, etc) that hasn’t been shared on Tabroom, just let me know
• I’m okay with speed as long as the case has been shared with me. Please slow down for important taglines
• I will give verbal critiques and answer questions unless the tournament rules say otherwise. Just ask

SPEAKS:

• I assign speaks based on speech organization (roadmap, signposting, etc), and clarity (can I hear what you’re saying? If you’re spreading, can I make out the taglines?). Other than that, just be a decent person - I’ll dock speaks if you’re rude/condescending in cross.

CASE:

• I’m a tech over truth judge in that I evaluate rounds based on who’s winning the flow, not which argument I think is actually ‘correct’. I insert my own opinion as little as possible, so tell me exactly what parts of the flow I’m voting on.
• In a situation that pits evidence against analytic argument, I’ll vote on whoever has the most plausible evidence. If both sides read evidence and neither side is gaining a lot of ground, I’ll vote on well-warranted analytical argumentation that provides good clash and creates a voting issue.

K/FRAMEWORK:

• I really love a good framework debate and find myself voting there often. I don’t default to a particular framing (util, etc), so I’ll let whoever is debating the round frame how it should be judged/decided and go from there (in other words, it’s very important if you make it important)

THEORY/TOPICALITY:

• I’m not opposed to voting on T, but know that I didn’t do a ton of T debate in high school so you’ll have to explain the voting issues very well (e.g., don’t talk about reverse RVIs for two minutes - just explain in Lehman’s terms why the theory creates education/fairness/equity, whatever your standard is)

ETC:

- I'm a simple woman, tell me your favorite Taylor Swift song for +0.3 speaks

Email – chrisgearing333@gmail.com – chain me up

i will vote on pretty much anything as long as you justify it in the context of the round.

I default to reasonability on procedurals and theory.

Non-CX events: I’ll vote on whatever, cool with speed, you do you.

I did some LD debate in college for UC San Diego in a couple national touraments with Harvard and Yale. However, I am by no means a tech or flow judge because its been a long time since I've debated and the style of debate has completely changed. I am considered to be a lay judge that can understand all arguments.

Don't rush speeches. Be clear.

Bring up important arguments all throughout your speeches and EXTEND.

Make sure to tell me why your argument is more important or more clear than theirs by weighing it.

Lastly, be respectful of each other throughout the debate round

sophiargustafson@gmail.com is the email for the email chain!

Resources

I have compiled some resources to get better at debate here!

TLDR

Always tell me "Prefer my evidence/argument because." Meaningful and intentional extensions of uniqueness + link + internal link + impact (don't forget warrants) in combination with weighing will win you the round. NOTE: I am a PF traditionalist. Spreading will not get you far in rounds with me.

Experience

I attended Theodore Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, Iowa and debated with Ellie Konfrst. I was a two time state champion when competing. I broke at the TOC and placed ninth at NSDA nationals my senior year (2018). I have also coached at NDF the following years: 2018, 2019, 2020. I am currently a 3L law student at the University of Iowa. I am the current varsity PF coach at Iowa City West. I have coached two teams (Duchesne Academy of the Sacred Heart BB and Iowa City West KE) to qualifying to the gold TOC.

What you should expect of me

It is my obligation to be familiar with the topic. I am also a very emotive judge, if I look confused please break down your argument. It is my obligation to provide for you a clear reason why my ballot was cast and to ensure that you and your coach are able to understand my decision. However, it is not my job to weigh impacts against each other / evaluate competing frameworks. I am always open to discuss the round afterwards.

Flowing

I love off time road maps and they help me flow, please give them! What is on my flow at the end of the round will make my decision for me and I will do my best to make my reasoning clear either on my ballot or orally at the end of the round. If you are organized, clean, clear and extending good argumentation well, you will do well. One thing that I find particularly valuable is having a strong and clear advocacy and a narrative on the flow. This narrative will help you shape responses and create a comparative world that will let you break down and weigh the round in the Final Focus. I also appreciate language that directly relates to the flow (tell me where to put your overview, tell me what to circle, tell me what to cross out).

Extensions

It’s important to note that to get an argument through to the final focus the team must extend the uniqueness+links+impacts. If a single piece is missing, then it significantly weakens the point’s weight in the round. If an argument is dropped at any time, it will not be extended and you’d be better off spending your time elsewhere. Extensions are the backbones of debate, a high-level debater should be able to allocate time and extend their offense and defense effectively.

Framework / Overviews

Framework

If a framework is essential for you to win the round / to your case it should be in constructive. I want to see your intention and round visions early on, squirrel-y argumentation through frameworks muddles the whole round. Only drop the framework if everyone agrees on it. If there is no agreement by summary, win under both.

Overviews

There are two types of overviews in my mind.

1: An overall response to their case.

Good idea.

2: Weighing overviews.

GREAT IDEA

I prefer overviews to be in rebuttal.

The Rebuttal

Extend framework if you want me to use it in order to weigh in the summary and final focus. I also have a soft spot for weighing overviews and usually find them incredibly valuable if done and extended correctly.

If extended and weighed properly, turns are enough to win a round, but if you double turn yourself and muddle the debate you wasted critical time that could have been spent on mitigation/de-linking/non-uniques.

My preference is that the entire first rebuttal is spent on the opponent’s side of the flow. For both teams, I like to see layered responses and very clear road-mapping and sign-posting. The refutations should cover both the entire contention and also examine specific warrants and impacts. The second rebuttal should engage both the opponent’s case as well as the opponent’s responses. Ideally, the time split should be between 3:1 and 2:2.

Summary

I believe the job of the summary speaker (especially for first speaking teams) is the hardest in the round and can easily lose a debate. Extending framework/overviews (if applicable), front lining, and weighing are the three necessary components of any narrative in summary.

Structure:

1. Case extensions (uniqueness, link, internal link, impact)
2. Frontlining
3. Defense/Turn extensions
4. Weighing (this can be put anywhere among the other three above).

Frontlining =/= narrative extension.

Defense in the first summary. Make smart strategic decisions. If the defense is being blown up - or mentioned - in final focus it needs to be in summary.

Final Focus

This should be the exact same as your summary with more weighing and less frontlining. It is okay to extend less arguments if you make up for it with weighing.

Speed

Clarity is critical when speaking quickly. My wpm is about 200, going faster than this is risking an incomplete flow on my ballot. If I miss something because of speed, there was an error in judge adaptation.

Organization through all speeches is essential and especially paramount in summary. Make sure I know exactly where you are so that I can help you get as much ink on the flow as possible. Tell me where to flow overviews otherwise I'll just make a judgement call on where to put it on the flow.

Progressive Arguments

I'm fine with Theory / Ks / role of the ballot though you always should "dumb them down" to language used in PF and you must clearly articulate why there is value in rejecting a traditional approach to the topic. Theory / Ks / role of the ballot will also need to be slowed down in terms of speed. Also, you need to read theory right after the violation happens. If you read it as a spike to throw the other team off, I will not evaluate the argument.

I value teams taking daring strategic decisions (EX: drop case and go fully for turns EX2: non-uniquing / severing contentions to avoid opponents turns) and will reward you smart and effective risk-taking with speaker points. That being said, if you do it poorly I will still drop you.

Cross

I like to see strong engagement of the issues in CX and appreciate a deeper analysis than simple clarifying questions. Please be polite and civil and it is everyone’s responsibility to de-escalate the situation as much as possible when it grows too extreme (some jokes are always preferred). Issues in CX will not be weighed in the round unless brought up in a following speech. Making jokes in grand cross to liven up the debate is always good for your speaker points (but don't be that person who tries too hard please).

Speaking

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

Do what you do best. I will listen to any arguments and vote on any argument as long as I understand them and why they matter. Don't be problematic (i.e. racist, sexist, ableist, etc.) My background is in policy but have experience in LD, PF, congress, and extemp (some more than others). Did mostly K/performance debate in college. My email is hannahphel@gmail.com if you have any questions. Don't spread in front of me, if I can't understand an argument it doesn't matter, and I can't understand spreading. Please don't call me judge, Hannah works great.

I've decided to crowdfund my paradigm, if you have other questions to be answered let me know and I will add them here.

I would call myself a heavy tab judge. I will listen to any argument that you could possibly read in front of me, but only if you can do so, well. Ks, K affs, theory, framework, performances, wipeout, CPs, Ts, and anything else you could possibly run is okay with me. My only condition is that Voters must always be read. I don't care how long you spend on the argument, if you don't properly cover the voters on the individual argument, then I have no reason as a judge to vote for it.

Explicitly sexist, racist, xenophobic, and homophobic discourse does not belong in debate, so don't engage in it. People should be nice. If you are not, then you may be looking at a low point win. I do not vote based purely on speaking style but if you are rude or offensive, then don't hope for anywhere near that 30. Other than these caveats, I am comfortable voting for just about any winning argument within any framework you want to explicitly place me within. Absent debate to the contrary, I default to voting for the advocacy with the most net beneficial post fiat impacts. On all portions of the debate I tend to use the heuristics of offense/defense, timeframe/probability/magnitude, and uniqueness/link/impact to evaluate and compare arguments.

Speed:

Won't be able to spread me out of the round as long as you are clear. If you are not then I will say clear once and then after that anything that does not end up on the flow does not get carried over.

Email: jameshaydenporter@gmail.com

I debated CX in high school in the mid-90s, coached for a few years, and now only judge once or twice a year. If you run a multitude of positions, make sure to collapse in the NR. Whatever the positions, I want to see a good debate with clash, clear explanations of warrants, and impact calculus. Most types of arguments are fine, including Ks. Note: I’ve rarely had theory as part of my RFD; abuse has to be clear. I don’t get it as a strategic argument and can’t follow it—just being honest.Email chain: pozza.amy@gmail.com

I am a lay judge, this is my first tournament judging PF. Please speak at a conversational rate and explain your arguments thoroughly.

Note: Please be respectful to your opponents at all times, if not, it may be reflected in your speaker points.

Hi! I was primarily a CX debater in high school. I also did PF, Congress, and Extemporaneous Speaking!

I prefer a well-paced debate. I don't think you have to spread in order to be classified as a good debater. If I can't understand what your arguments are then I won't flow them.

I prefer policy debates but I also consider myself a STOCK issues judge. I don't mind Counterplans or DAs. I don't care about Kritiks.

As a policy judge, I enjoy listening to the AFF's plan, especially if they are unique. I want to know how AFF improves the status quo. This means that advantages and solvency are extremely important.

Sometimes I like Topicality arguments, other times I don't, it really just depends on how well the Topicality argument is presented in the round.

Clash is a key element during any kind of debate, please don't just read off of your pre-written arguments and expect to win. It's also important that you extend your arguments. And don't forget to weigh the round and give me voters!