I was a varsity LD debater in high school. Keep your own time. Speak clearly. Explain how I should weigh your arguments. Be polite to your opponents, a little sassy is different from rude.

I want to be on your email chains: ilanacohentms@gmail.com

Green Valley High School- Nevada

            2 Years Lincoln Douglas

            2 Years Public Forum

Lincoln Douglas

I did LD for two years of my high school career.

Speed: I do not mind speed but please be clear, If I cannot understand you; I will not flow you.

Framework: Highly important, state points clearly.

Cross-X: I do not flow cross-x, but I do pay attention to what happens. That is time for you to figure out and exploit weaknesses in your opponent’s case. If something important pops up during that time, tell me during your speeches.

Other things: One thing that I judge the most off of is the warrants offered during the round. Give me concrete and clear reasons why you either won an argument or the round (if you feel the need to say it).

I do allow flex prep, but do not abuse it.

Do not attack your opponent as a person, that’s just being a jerk. Clash with your opponent should be clear, civil, and well warranted.

Actually follow/adjust to a paradigm. That's why they are there.

Any other questions, feel free to ask me.

Have fun!

My Name is Taylor Parker. I am currently a senior. I have over 3 years of debate experience from the meadows school. Two years of LD debate and a year of Policy.

Flash me your evidence/ include me in an email chain before the debate round starts.

Give roadmaps before you start your speeches.

I don’t mind speed just make sure you are clear and coherent in your arguments. I will say clear if I cannot understand you.

Flow the debate. Organization is key to any debate.

Know your times and time yourself.

Have fun and do your best, good luck!!

add me to the email chain ksarfo11@gwu.edu

Hello all, my name is Kobby Sarfo. I debated for 4 years at the Meadows and I read a lot of Afro style arguments with a little Baudrillard cuz I'm just cool like that.

When resolving the debate, I like to focus on the nexus point of the debate. I'm also big on truth and won't resolve arguments with tech unless there's like REALLY nothing there so don't lie.

So imma just go down the list and tell y'all what I'm partial to and what I don't care for.

The Top level

"No flow clarification" (Danielle Dosch) - if you want to ask what was and was not read, do it in CX or flow (I'm like Alderete on this one)

giving me your flowsheets at the end of the round nets you extra speaks

DO NOT CLIP CARDS - you'll take a hot L and a 25 for your tomfoolery

Don't steal prep. Your prep ends when your time ends or when you say you're done. I will keep a timer handy so don't bother trying to get slick.

I don't disclose speaks but generally:

25.0-26.0 - you kinda stinky

26.5- 27.0 - meh, I've seen worse

27.5 - 28.0 - aight you kinda good

28.5 - 29.0 - you're really good

29.5 - 30 - God tier

Kritiks

My bread and butter. I prefer these types of debates. The kritik should disagree/disprove/turn the aff. make your link work specific. I love when kritik links directly, concisely, and efficiently answer the case. 99/100 times, these debates come down to the link work and a true master of their art can articulate a great link story and can very clearly put into words what their alt looks like. Go for em, read em but understand them.

CPs

I also read a lot of counter plans. go for em

PICS

A - ok in my book. read em

DA's

not my strongest so I tend to resolve these by listening primarily to the uniqueness and the link (very much so on this, you want to go hard on this). In terms of impacts, make sure you do all the necessary weighing and justify why this is the nexus issue of the debate. Since I read a lot of afro - style Kritikal affs, I might find myself more partial to a unique type of impact takeouts that focus on that type of language obscuring more down - to - earth issues, so keep that in mind.

Affs with plans

Go for them. Asking an aff to know every single facet of the resolution instead of narrowing it down based on their strengths is the height of absurdity to me.

Kritikal/Performance affs

I also read a lot of these. Go for them. know your literature and explain your arguments well. I will listen to them

T/theory

In terms of topicality when it applies to kritkal affs/plan specific affs, I'm not fond of it when debaters use it to get out of having to engage with literature that they don't know about, I think that debate should foster critical thinking and part of that is thinking on your feet. It also is semi - disrespectful to people who go out of their way to share stories of their discrimination or people who want to encourage a different way of looking at the topic. I'm not fond of it, but I'll vote on it so long as you engage the aff on a substantive level. Theory just tends to be a no - go for me. Sorry, but I'm not the type of judge that'll vote for you on frivolous theory or really any type of theory because I think most of it is dumb. But I do think that PICS bad is a legit theory argument. I will also not be super inclined to vote on RVI's unless you can pair that with a legit issue (racism, sexism, homophobia). For example, if you ran a kritikal aff and you read an afro fabulation plan and your opponent read a topicality shell on you specific to afropess, using an RVI, in that case, is justified IF you can articulate why your literature is different.

No Tricks or spikes or any of that nonsense.

Overviews

Slow down on these. Just assume that I'm a moron and tell me

1. How this debate is breaking down.

2. The primary issues that will resolve the debate.

3. How you gonna get that hot dub,

Online debates

Go about 70% speed on these. Make sure you send a pre-recorded version of your speech as well because if the connection gets bad or I don't hear you, what you said does not exist in my mind. Also, you can't re-give speeches

Things that'll net you hot L's

1. talking over BIPOC's in cross ex

2. talking over LGBTQ+ members in cross ex

3. talking over women in cross ex

4. reading sexist, homophobic, transphobic, racist, etc. arguments

5. getting rude. be civil y'all it's really just a game

6. clipping cards or mistakenly accusing someone of clipping cards

Things that will get you closer to the dub

1. respect

2. knowing your literature very well. Seriously most people in debate don't read and that makes me a sadboi.

3. good my hero academia, Jojo's bizarre adventure, and avengers references

4. good humor

Judges whose paradigms I agree with

Tim Alderete - he's my former coach so of course

Jasmine Stidham - very smart person

Christopher Randall - if my paradigm doesn't make sense to you (for some odd reason), just assume I'm a mini and much better looking Chris

Aaron Timmons - one of the quintessential voices of debate in my opinion

Public Forum and L/D Judging Philosophy

I'm doing my best to run a blank slate, but if you fail to critically analyze the topic (and IMPACTS), then I will be forced to in my decision. You may not like the way I analyze impacts if you fail to, so do it for me to avoid frustration with my decision. I debated LD 3 years, and PF 1 year. 

I will however leave as much of that as I can at the door and I'll listen to your arguments.

General Info for both sides.
What gets down on my flow is tag lines and author names. I'll listen to the actual article but tag lines is what I believe is important. If I need to evaluate it, I'll ask for it. (If you think I need to look at your opponents card, or you want me to see your card at the end of the round, DO NOT expect me to analyze it the same way you did. I will do my best to understand what you were doing with it, but if I see you are clearly misrepresenting the evidence, I will take the card for what it actually is and evaluate from there.)

Value/Criterion Debate (Mainly for L/D)
One of the best ways to win my ballot, especially on the criterion. Explain to me why your criterion outweighs if you have a different one than your opponent. If you have the same criterion then explain to me why your contentions will do that better than your opponent.

Contentions
I'll listen to anything. If it's outrageous, then I expect your opponent to call you on it, and then I'll side with who makes the clearer and most logical argument.

Rebuttals
Address every argument your opponent makes. Obviously this can be difficult because you are low on time. If you don't address it, and they extend it, they win that argument. If you don't address it and they don't extend it, I'll think and decide if I buy it. Essentially, the rebuttals are your chance to tell me how to think about something. When you don't I start thinking. We may not agree but if you don't tell me how to think then what else can I do.

Voting Issues
Summarising the round before your time is up on your last speech is excellent. Why should i vote for you? What impacts do you have? What will happen if I vote for your opponent? These are all valuable questions to help win my ballot.

My Ballot
My vote comes from the flow. It's which arguments were won by the affirmative team against which arguments were won by the negative team, and the impacts that come with them. Impacts always outweigh. If the affirmative team wins 4 arguments and the impact is the economy, and the negative team wins 1 argument and solves for extinction, the negative wins. It's about impacts with me, and logical impacts. Please understand that no matter what, one side will be very happy with me and one side will be very upset with me. That's the nature of this sport/activity. My decision will be made and it will be explained, but it will not be questioned any way other than for clarity.
Any questions?

jstackpo@asu.edu (subject line "Debate")