Most important thing first: He who wins the framework, wins the round. He who wins the framework wins the round. He who wins the framework, wins the round. Ok? Yes, you can argue against the contrary if you want.

No spreading. I will put my pen down and stop listening. I feel no ethical or professional obligation to strain myself to understand someone trying so little to be understood.

Philosophy and framework debate matter before all. I have a masters in philosophy. Impact doesn't really matter, if philosophically you can't prove that the impact would be a good thing.

I pay attention during cross examination. Concessions made there are binding.

I've done this for some time, but I am traditional and have no patience for progressive LD tricks designed to avoid a debate. This doesn't mean no critique, but it does mean that your critique had better demonstrate deep understanding of the deeper philosophic issues at play or I'll just dismiss it as sophistry. Theory? Again, fine if you really demonstrate a deep understanding of the philosophy. I feel likewise about cleverly redefining words in the resolution. I'm fine with a fine-tuned definition of words and their meanings but you had better have a really good reason for redefining a word away from its commonsense, everyday use. Again, you could have that reason.

While I'm not a lay judge, if a lay judge couldn't understand you, we have problems. It's up to you to be clear, not up to me to demonstrate I can listen. The real Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas debated before farmers with less than an eight grade education in Freeport and Peoria IL. Let them be your guides.

I do not have any true paradigm, but there are some things I would like debaters to know.

I love clash. Please do not bring canned arguments and speeches into a round. I want to witness the art of rhetoric!

Speak clearly. I can work with moderately fast speech, but please know that I cannot give you points if I cannot understand your points.

I do not flow crossfire. Therefore, if you want me to consider points made in X, be sure to bring them up again later in the round if you want them to have any weight.

Email: jameshbrock@gmail.com

Handshaking: Even before current viral concerns, I wasn't a fan of hand shaking. If you feel the need for post round physical contact, I will either accept a light fist bump or a full hug of no less than 5 seconds in duration. Alternatively, you can just wait for my decision.

Overview: I am the debate coach at Houston County High School a suburban (closer to rural than urban) school 2 hours south of Atlanta. We don't travel outside of the state much. I am a big advocate of policy debate, but, the vast majority of tournaments we attend no longer offer the event. So, we have switched to PF/LD debate.

I flow. If I am not flowing, there is a problem.

Speed okay. If I am not flowing, there is a problem. The most likely reason I would not be flowing is, that the sound coming out of your mouth is not words. If this happens, I will most likely close my laptop or put down my pen until I can recognize the sounds you are making.

Disclosure Theory: I am a small school coach. My teams are not required to post their cases online. I don't like it when teams lose debates to rules those teams didn't know were "rules". If disclosure is mandated by the tournament's invitation, I will listen. I also, will not attend that tournament. So, just don't run it. Inclusion o/w your fairness arguments.

PF: I judge on an offence/defense paradigm. Logic is good, evidence is better. I'm the guy who will vote on first strike good or dedev. Tech over truth, but I will not give a low point win in PF, and try to stay true to the speaking roots of PF. F/W is the most important part of the debate for me. It is a gateway issue that provides the lens through which to view my decision. I have done a moderate amount of research, but I probably haven't read that article. I may be doing it wrong, but I like logic when judging a PF round. I don't think you have time to develop DAs or Ks, but have no other objection to their existence. Jeff Miller says to answer these questions if judging PF... - do you expect everything in the final focus to also be in the summary? Yes. At least tangentially. The first final focus of the round needs to be able to predict the direction of the the final speech. If it's not in the Summary it gives an unfair advantage to the second speaker. - Do second speaking teams have to respond to the first rebuttal? No, but its a good idea. It makes for a better debate and I will award speaker points will be awarded for doing this. - Do first speaking teams have to extend defense in the first summary? If you want to extend defense in the final focus. - Do you flow/judge off crossfire? Cross is binding, but it needs to be made in the speech to count on the ballot. That being said, at this tournament, damaging crossfire questions have provided major links and changed the momentum of debates. - Do teams have to have more than one contention? No. - does framework have to be read in the constructives? Responsive F/w is allowed but not advisable in rebuttal only.

LD: For me, this is policy light. I understand it, but I try not to be influenced by a lack of policy jargon in the round. IE I will accept an argument that says "The actor could enact both the affirmative action and the negative action." as a permutation without the word perm being used in the round. I tend to view values and value criterion as a framework debate that influences the mechanisms for weighing impacts. I am a little lenient on 1ar line by line debate, but coverage should be sufficient to allow the nr to do their job. I will protect the nr from new 2ar argument to a fault. I will not vote on morally repugnant arguments like "extinction good" or "rocks are more important than people".

tl;dr: Spend a lot of time on F/W. Impact your arguments.

Policy Debate: (Having this in here is a little ridiculous. Its kinda like, "back in my day we had inherency debates. No one talks about inherent barriers anymore...)

Procedural:
I am human, and I have made mistakes judging rounds. But, I reserve the right to dock speaker points for arguing after the round.
I have few problems with speed. If you are unclear, I will say clear or loud once and then put my pen down or close my laptop. I love 1NC's and 2ACs that number their arguments.
I want the debaters to make my decision as easy as possible. My RFD should be very very similar to the first 3 sentences of the 2AR or 2NR.
After a harm is established, I presume it is better to do something rather than nothing. So in a round devoid of offence, I vote affirmative

The K:
As a debater and a younger coach, I did not understand nor enjoy the kritik. As the neg we may have run it as the 7th off case argument, and as the aff we responded to the argument with framework and theory. As I've grown as a coach I've started to understand the educational benefits of high school students reading advanced philosophy. That being said, In order to vote negative on the kritik, I need a very, very clear link, and reason to reject the aff. I dislike one-off-K, and standard Ks masked with a new name. I do, however, enjoy listening to critical affirmatives related to the topic. I am often persuaded by PIK's, and vague alts bad theory.

Don't assume that I have read the literature. I have not.

Non-traditional debate: We are a small and very diverse squad, and I (to some extent) understand that struggle. I have coached a fem rage team, and loved it.

Theory:
I have no particular aversion to theoretical objections. As an observation, I do not vote on them often. I need a clear reason to reject the other team. I will occasionally vote neg on Topicality, but you have to commit. I think cheaty CPs are bad for debate, and enjoy voting on ridiculous CP is ridiculous theory. I still need some good I/L to Education to reject the team.


Parliamentary debate:
I enjoy this format. I will adopt a policy maker F/W unless otherwise instructed.

Background: I debated for four years on the NPDA/NPTE circuit with Rice University (2017-2021). If I had to quantify my debate career, I would say 70% Ks, 20% theory, and 10% straight up. Open to listen to most arguments though, as long as they’re not Joe Rogan and co. She/her/hers.

Key Points:

· I believe debate is fundamentally an educational space with room for whatever else the debaters want it to be about. If you just want to run jokes, also fine.

· Please don’t be rude, malicious, and/or problematic – your speaks will reflect that and I will vote against you on presumption if it’s egregious

· Explain your warrants and please do impact calc. Overviews appreciated.

· Not the best straight up debater – if that’s your thing, please slow down/explain a bit more on the crucial parts than you normally would, especially for any econ scenarios

· I do my best to protect on the flow - please still call Point of Orders if you want, but I prefer max 3

Texts/Interpretations: Please read them slowly and read them twice. Have copies ready for everyone (judges, opponents) ASAP after they’re read.

Theory: Started doing this more in the last year I debated. I default to theory as the apriori question in the round, competing interps > reasonability, and proven > potential abuse unless otherwise argued.

· Please have clearly demarcated interps, violations, standards, and voters.

· Please pick clear impact(s) to sheet that you’re going for

· Please collapse to just one sheet. My sanity will thank you for it.

· MG theory is fine, but if you’re gonna go for it in the PMR, it better be the only thing you're going for

Ks: My favorite kind of argument. Run whatever you want. That being said, since I really like Ks, I also have a higher threshold on what makes a K well-run, so just keep that in mind if you want to run them in front of me.

· K links should be specific to the aff - otherwise I buy “no link” arguments fairly easily

· I look to framework first to evaluate impacts, so winning there (or at least not losing) is good for you in front of me

· All Ks should have an alternative with some explanation of solvency, though you’re not obligated to go for it

CPs: Admittedly not my strong suit, though I’ll still listen to them.

· Condo good/bad/dispo all fine – just define your terms clearly

· All CPs should have competition, net benefits, and solvency

· Please make sure your CP does not link to your other sheets – and if they do, you better win that condo debate lol

DAs: Tix and IR scenarios are the ones I’m most familiar with. I’m not well versed in econ scenarios. Well warranted and specific DA debates are rare nowadays, so if you’re running one, good for you.

· No preference on what type of DA you run, though please be aware of my familiarity/lack thereof

· Overviews on Das especially appreciated if collapsing to them

Perms: I default to perms as tests of competition and not advocacies. Please have a copy for me if it’s long.

· Permutations should have at least two solid net benefits to be leveraged as proper offense against the K

· If the perm text doesn't make sense, I’ll have a much harder time voting for you

I am a debate coach in Georgia. I also competed in LD and Policy out west. Take that for whatever you think it means.

• LD - Value/Value Criterion (Framework, Standard, etc,) - this is what separates us from the animals (or at least the policy debaters). It is the unique feature of LD Debate. Have a good value and criterion and link your arguments back to it. I am open to all arguments but present them well, know them, and, above all, Clash - this is a debate not a tea party.
• PF - I side on the traditional side of PF. Don't throw a lot of jargon at me or simply read cards... this isn't Policy Jr., compete in PF for the debate animal it is. Remember debate, especially PF, is meant to persuade - use all the tools in your rhetorical toolbox: Logos, Ethos, and Pathos.
• Speed - Debate is a SPEAKING event. I like speed but not spreading. Speak as fast as is necessary but keep it intelligible. There aren't a lot of jobs for speed readers after high school (auctioneers and pharmaceutical disclaimer commercials) so make sure you are using speed for a purpose. If you spread - it better be clear, I will not yell clear or slow down or quit mumbling, I will just stop listening. If the only way I can understand your case is to read it, you have already lost. If you are PRESENTING and ARGUING and PERSUADING then I need to understand the words coming out of your mouth! NEW for ONLINE DEBATE - I need you to speak slower and clearer, pay attention to where your mike is. On speed in-person, I am a 7-8. Online, make it a 5-6.
• Email Chains Please include me on email chains if it is used in the round, but don't expect me to sit there reading your case to understand your arguments - pchildress@gocats.org **Do not email me outside of the round unless you include your coach in the email.
• Know your case, like you actually did the research and wrote the case and researched the arguments from the other side. If you present it, I expect you to know it from every angle - I want you to know the research behind the statistic and the whole article, not just the blurb on the card.
• Casing - Love traditional but I am game for kritiks, counterplans, theory - but perform them well, KNOW them, I won't do the links for you. I am a student of Toulmin - claim-evidence-warrant/impacts. I don't make the links and don't just throw evidence cards at me with no analysis. It is really hard for you to win with an AFF K with me - it better be stellar. I am not a big fan of Theory shells that are not actually linked in to the topic - if you are going to run Afro-Pes or Feminism you better have STRONG links to the topic at hand, if the links aren't there... Also don't just throw debate terms out, use them for a purpose and if you don't need them, don't use them.
• I like clash. Argue the cases presented, mix it up, have some fun, but remember that debate is civil discourse - don't take it personal, being the loudest speaker won't win the round, being rude to your opponent won't win you the round.
• Debating is a performance in the art of persuasion and your job is to convince me, your judge (not your opponent!!) - use the art of persuasion to win the round: eye contact, vocal variations, appropriate gestures, and know your case well enough that you don't have to read every single word hunched over a computer screen. Keep your logical fallacies for your next round. Rhetoric is an art.
• Technology Woes - I will not stop the clock because your laptop just died or you can't find your case - not my problem, fix it or don't but we are going to move on.
• Ethics - Debate is a great game when everyone plays by the rules. Play by the rules - don't give me a reason to doubt your veracity.
• Win is decided by the flow (remember if you don't LINK it, I don't either), who made the most successful arguments and used evidence and reasoning to back up those arguments.
• Speaker Points are awarded to the best speaker - I end up with a rare low point win each season. I am fairly generous on speaker points. I disclose winner but not speaker points. Even is you are losing a round or not feeling it during the round, don't quit on yourself or your opponent! You may not like the way your opponent set up their case or you may not like a certain style of debate but don't quit in a round.
• Don't browbeat less experienced debaters; you should aim to win off of argumentation skill against less experienced opponents, not smoke screens or jargon. 7 off against a first-year may get you the win, but it kills the educational and ethical debate space you should strive for. As an experienced debater, you should hope to EDUCATE them not run them out of the event.
• Enjoy yourself. Debate is the best sport in the world - win or lose - learn something from each round, don't gloat, don't disparage other teams, judges, or coaches, and don't try to convince me after the round is over. Leave it in the round and realize you may have just made a friend that you will compete against and talk to for the rest of your life. Don't be so caught up in winning that you forget to have some fun - in the round, between rounds, on the bus, and in practice.
• Rule of Debate Life. Sometimes you will be told you are the winner when you believe you didn't win the round - accept it as a gift from the debate gods and move on. Sometimes you will be told you lost a round that you KNOW you won - accept that this is life and move on. Sometimes judges base a decision on something that you considered insignificant or irrelevant and sometimes judges get it wrong, it sucks but that is life. However, if the judge is inappropriate - get your advocate, your coach, to address the issue. Arguing with the judge in the round or badmouthing them in the hall or cafeteria won't solve the issue.
• Immediate losers for me - be disparaging to the other team or make racist, homophobic, sexist arguments or comments. Essentially, be kind and respectful if you want to win.
• Questions? - if you have a question ask me.

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.

As a science teacher, I function in a world based upon data and logic. My paradigm is based upon that experience and personal value system. Arguments establish validity through the proper use of data versus grandiose claims of support based upon claims with small value. Provided below is a list of how I evaluate arguments:

1. Is your position logical? Does it take into account as much evidence as possible? Does it ignore or dismiss the counter-argument? Absolutes, by my opinion, signify weak positions.
2. Does the the data support the argument? Is it significant enough to value when considering the position, or is it anecdotal?
3. How does your argument relate to the bigger picture? The small stories lead to the sum of the larger story? Where does the process lead?
4. How does your argument affect others? Are the sacrifices being presented enough to support your position? Have you considered the long term outcomes of your position? Does it favor those with power, wealth, and privilege versus the average person? Does it further marginalize those who have significantly less privilege? Does it widen the gaps?
5. From a stance of morality and ethical behavior, does your argument abandon those values? Is it the old "to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs" argument?
6. Is your position what is popular or what is right? Popularity is easy to follow, but is it what is best for all? Are you willing to make sacrifices to your position to strengthen its argument? Are you willing to reconsider the evidence presented as a counter to yours or do you dismiss it?

speak from the heart and remember.. IF WISDOM COULD SPEAK IT WOULD SPEAK ELEGANTLY

I COMPETED HAPPILY FOR FOUR YEARS AT THE BRONX HIGH SCHOOL OF SCIENCE IM INVOLVED IN THE ACTIVITY TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU CAN THROW MOST ANYTHING YOU WANT AT ME AND ILL GET IT BUT MAYBE NOT ALWAYS IN THE WAY YOU WANT 

full paradigm at judgephilsophies wikispaces

I competed in LD for 4 years with Grady HS in Atlanta. Currently coach HS parli.

Please use they/them pronouns to refer to me. Feel free to ask me about this if you have questions!

email: alex.opsahl@yale.edu (include me in email chain)

___

Be kind!! Debate should be an enjoyable learning experience. It's not that deep.

Don't be racist/ homophobic/ transphobic/ etc. or I will drop you with 0 speaks and talk to your coach. No "oppression good" impact turns.

Psychological safety is v important- include trigger warnings for sexual assault, suicide, anti-Black violence, etc. If you feel uncomfortable at any point during round, feel free to email me ASAP and I will do my best to address the issue.

____

Pref overview:

fw/ phil/ ks: 1

policy/larp: 2

t/theory: 3

tricks: 4- not a fan

______

tech > truth, unless you say something violent or blatantly false.

T> theory

truth testing > comparative worlds

Feel free to spread. That being said, it's been a minute since I judged/ debated, so I may miss a few things if you do (I only vote on what I can flow). If you do spread, disclose your case.

Theory: Please only read theory if your opponent's argument is genuinely abusive. Might vote on RVIs if well-warranted. Will use reasonability standard unless convincing arg is made against this.

If you run "progressive/circuit" args at a local tournament, ensure everyone can understand your argument regardless of their exposure to progressive debate. I'd prefer if we all try to make debate as accessible as possible!

I like students who keep their arguments relatively simple.  The best cases, in my opinion , are characterized by clarity, cogency, and one or two fully defined and exemplified contentions.  I do insist on a fairly bullet-proof framework on which to hang the contentions and not too emphasis put on the theoretical foundations once that framework has been articulated and defined.  I do not like spreading of any sort.  I also do not like students to read off of their laptops.  I much prefer students who have their cases on paper and engage their judge and opponent with effective eye contact and use of hands. 

I am a judge of high school debate. I debated for 3 years (PF,LD,Impromptu,Extemp,O.O., WSD). Debate the best way you can, give adequate analysis and deliver with persuasiveness. Voting usually involves, but is not limited to, Framework, Rhetoric, & Argumentation.

Speed: I can't flow circuit-level speed and pushing that limit won't make me more likely to vote for you. I can flow fast conversational pace. Err on the side of not spreading.

Saying “My partner will bring that up in a later round”/“I will bring up evidence to affirm/deny ...”/any other variation makes sense as time is limited. However, make sure that the points or evidence is actually brought up.

IMPACTS > Other stuff. Evidence is great, but don’t read a card to me. Apply that. Abstract impacts are okay, but quantification of those will also be heavily preferred.

Being the loudest doesn't mean you're winning. It means you're loud. Debate is at the end of the day, civil discourse.

Being witty or making puns is great. These are very serious topics, but a big part of debate is persuasion. If you're serious the entire time, monotone, and boring, it will be hard to convince me to vote for you.

Overall- I like good argumentation, good rhetoric, and some clash. These will get you points. Signposting, well-constructed arguments, with properly linked evidence will get you points as well. Being rude, spreading, weak arguments that don’t get defended, and poorly linked evidence will cause you to lose points.

Former LD competitor.

I want roadmaps, clash, and clear voters, and link your arguments back to your Value and Criterion---tell me WHY what you're saying should matter. Ideally, you both make quality rebuttals to each other, so if you all cancel out each other’s arguments how should a judge decide the ballot—make sure that your voters/weighing tells me that.

My thoughts on spreading: quality over quantity.

I do not favor a particular style. I prefer students to make their case and prove it clearly and strongly. If you stumble and fracture your speech, that will hurt your case. Be professional, not rude. Be strong, not obnoxious.

I make sure that I am well read on the subject matter, but I DO NOT evoke my personal opinion in any manner.

I am judging the round, I am not a referee.  Good Luck!

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

I am a law student at GA State and a graduate of UGA (philosophy major).  In high school, I debated mostly on the national circuit in L-D for Chattahoochee, along with limited local tournament experience in policy.

Speed. Though I debated on the national circuit and am friendly to more progressive case structures, I have not participated in the activity for a very long time.  I am quite rusty.  A high-moderate speed is fine, but please don't speak any quicker than that.

Case Structures. As for argumentation, I am fine with traditional cases, as well as structures like theory, topicality, disadvantages, counterplans, kritiks, etc.  This was all very cutting-edge stuff for L-D when I was debating.  Not sure if it is even controversial anymore.  The classic stock case is perfectly fine as well and is often the best mechanism for affirming or negating the resolution.

Framework. I like very clear framework debates.  This is, in fact, the best component of debate, after all.  While the rules of every other game are pre-set with a clear evaluative metric for determining winners/losers (scoring the most points in baseball; scoring the least amount of points in golf, etc.), the great thing about debate is that we set up the criteria within the debate itself.  As such, make sure that there is a clear standard that I can use to weigh the arguments.  Always link the standard back to the resolution in a direct way.

I competed in Georgia and on the national circuit in PF for my first three years, then LD senior year.

In LD I think that the framework debate is very important (at least in stock cases). That's not to say it needs to be a large part of the debate (if there aren't competing frameworks don't try to debate frameworks...), but rather it should give me a system to weigh your arguments under. If you aren't winning your framework, do work under your opponent's framework so you are at least competitive in the round.

Run whatever arguments you want. I'm not going to drop you for running a K, a plan, thoery, or whatever else you want. Just make sure you can explain your position well and it's well thought out, not simply meant to confuse your opponent or me.

I'm fine with spreading, but if you plan to spread please flash/email your opponent and me your case.

I won't run prep for flashing/emailing but be reasonable.

Flex prep is fine if your opponent is okay with it.

I led LD at Walton High School '14 for four years and judged local tournaments while attending Georgia Tech '18.

I try to be tabula-rasa-ish, so make sure you give me impacts or conditions under which you win, which you should be doing regardless. For those only experienced in local debate, this means I know nothing about the resolution or your case (including what qualifies your winning the round or how to weigh arguments); I will take your case at face value and actively avoid drawing conclusions until you give them to me clearly.

I'm fine with progressive techniques meaning spreading and Ks, and I enjoy weirder arguments. However, I always go back to the framework debate.

Paint the neg/aff world for me

Notes:

- Ideally, you should be spending roughly a third to half of your AC/NC constructing and justifying your framework; don't be vague

- I encourage use of weighing, impact turns, and counterplans

- Cross-ex blind. Learning how to rephrase/restate/emphasize is good practice for real life.

- Fine with flex prep as long as both debaters are

- Prefer standing over sitting because it makes you a better real-life speaker, but I'm flexible if this is difficult