Hello Debaters,

I approach the debate with a focus on substance and argumentation, emphasizing the importance of clear communication and effective case development. Here are key aspects of my judging philosophy:

Flow-Centric Evaluation:
I prioritize the flow & time limits as the primary tool for decision-making.
Debaters should clearly articulate and extend arguments throughout the round.
I appreciate the organization and signposting that enhance the flow

Impacts Matter:
I give weight to well-developed impacts that are linked to the resolution.
Impact calculus is crucial. Clearly explain why your impacts outweigh those presented by your opponent.

Clarity and Signposting:
Clear, concise, and organized speeches are key. Clarity in communication helps me understand your arguments better.
Try to use simple words during the debates, remember, the PF should be the debate everyone can understand.
Signpost consistently to help me follow your line of argumentation.

Adaptability:
I appreciate debaters who can adapt their strategy based on the flow of the round.
Flexibility in argumentation and the ability to adjust to your opponent's arguments will be recognized.

Framework and Weighing:
Framework is essential for framing the round, but it should be applied in a way that enhances substantive clash.
Effective weighing of impacts is crucial. Explain why your impacts are more significant in the context of the round.

Evidence-based arguments:
I like debaters who use accurate and meaningful data & resources during the round, they are more persuasive to me during the round; In another way, I am not a fan of theory arguments.
Quality over quantity. Well-analyzed and relevant evidence will carry more weight than a flood of less meaningful sources.
Reference your evidence appropriately and be prepared to defend its relevance.

Respect and Sportsmanship:
Maintain a respectful and professional demeanor throughout the round.
I don't tolerate any form of discrimination or offensive behavior & language. Such behavior will have a negative impact on your final result.

Remember, this paradigm is a guide (besides the last part), and I am open to various debating styles and arguments. Adapt your approach to these guidelines, and feel free to ask for clarification on any specific preferences before the round begins.

Good luck & Have fun during the debate!

hi. i’m a public forum debater, orator, and extemper. I’m a pretty extroverted person so if you say something off track, you definitely will see my reaction and know that. At the end of each round, i will give some feedback and critiques on the round, if, of course, you want me to.

Some rules i have:

1. Let’s have fun. that’s all i want. this is a learning experience for us all so just enjoy it

2. I want everyone to have confidence in themselves, and to know that the only way to get better, is to try your hardest no matter the circumstance. never give up, because a round can be won at many different times.

3. DO NOT say anything homophobic, transphobic, sexist, racist, xenophobic, or any other such things. I will not tolerate it all and will lose you the round

PUBLIC FORUM:

Actual debate-y stuff I like for PF:

1. i want clear and loud case reading. i don’t care how fast, just please be legible otherwise you are going to lose
2. tell me where you are at on the flow. otherwise imma be lost and i won’t even know what you are arguing anymore. clearly tell me in this format (onto their contention 1 sub point A where they argue _____ )
3. rebuttal: if you are the first speaking team, please only attack your opponents case. if you are the second speaker team, please use about 3 ish minutes on your opponents side first, and then use the rest to respond to a few arguments the opponents made against your case.
4. summary: literally the most important speech. this makes or breaks your round if i’m being honest. clear and concise. boil it down to the main points, what is dropped and what isn’t, and use voters (main things that are the reason why you win. can really be anything)
5. final focus: really just explain to me why you won. rounds are usually won at summary, but if you tell me something really good in final focus, you might win. don’t repeat the voters back to me. i already heard them. no new evidence though
6. cross fire: this is my pet peeve. ask relevant questions please. and don’t keep pushing something that they already answered. DO NOT BE RUDE. OMG IF YOU ARE IT MAKES ME MAD PLEASE PLEASE DONT.
7. use off the clock road maps for all speeches except the constructive

LINCOLN DOUGLAS

Im not the most familiar with this. I do know structure and stuff kinda of it. You will have to help me with timings and what speech is what. Things I look for in this are similar to PF, so just read above whatever you need.

Niche things:

1. CBA is the worst framework in history
2. ontology makes me wanna die
3. jakob hofer loves K's, run one on him
4. if you run a joke case, i genuinely will listen
5. if you see patrick pope, tell him to run his damn miles

I hope you guys get in the habit of reading paradigm. if you do read this, mention SpongeBob squarepants to me before or after the round and i will give .5 speaker points. whoever does it first gets the extra points

If you are a novice and somehow run a K, you instantly will be given the W

General:

Hi I’m Sami, I did debate for all four years of high school. I did Public Forum, DX, inform, and oratory. I stay fairly up to date on the topics and general global events.I’m a sophomore in college so I’m not super far out in terms of remembering how debate works. I’ll keep a good flow and base my decision off of that. Please just be courteous to your opponents, me and most importantly your partner (if you have one).

PF:

Off the clock road maps are fine, if anything I prefer them if your circuits allows them.

Speed: I can handle speed fairly well, however if I’m not flowing slow down. Just because I can handle the speed doesn’t mean you should act like you're in a policy round and go light speed, if you do it will be reflected in speaker points. If you're trying to spread your opponents, trust me I can tell and again will be reflected in lower speaker points. Don’t be abusive with speed, it's not fun for anyone involved.

Flowing: I am a flow judge, if you can win the flow you can win my ballet. Please sign post, I can’t weigh arguments if I don’t know where on the flow they belong. If you or your partner doesn’t extend arguments don’t bring it up again. If your opponent tries this, call them out, if they dropped something that they’re making a huge voting issue off of it, say it was a drop. If your in second summary, don't bring up new evidence or new arguments, this is abusive to your opponents and honestly just really messes up the flow. I won't flow it and won't hold your opponents to respond to it, so don't do it. Similar I expect second rebuttal to cover both the pro and con sides of the flow, a sign of a good debate (and second speaker in general) is being able to time manage both cases and cover necessary arguments. If you drop it in second rebuttal it's going to be very hard to have your summary speaker recover the point or argument on the flow.

Calling for Evidence: I won’t run prep time for either team when calling for cards, but please don’t steal prep time, if I see this I will start to run your prep. Also please be quick about this, don't spend 5 minutes finding a card, this should be ready to go. Cards should also be cut (if not it will be reflected in speaker points)!

Framework: If you have it you better pull it through if you want me to use it as a weighting mechanism! Don't mention it in constructive then again in FF. If no framework is provided I'll default to Cost Ben Analysis. If there is clash in framework give me reason in rebuttal and summary as to why I should prefer your FW.

General: Don’t be abusive with anything in the round, please remember that this is just a high school debate round. Also remember your opponents are people too and they have feelings. Be careful with what you say when leaving the room or in the general area, keep ranting on the bus.

LD:

I’m so sorry you have me as your judge. I’ve judged LD once but have seen a good handful of rounds. I know kinda what's going on but I’m by no means an expert. Stuff from PF will loosely translate for the more transferable skills.

Extemp:

Please don’t lie about sources, I’ll know. I’ll try to give you time signals. Do what you do. Like I mentioned before I stay up-to-date with the majority of topics, though I'm more knowledgeable on domestic issues. I won't hold any of my political beliefs against you, I want to hear your answer to the question. As long as you give me warrants, connect your sources to the question, give me good analysis and don't lie about your source, that's a perfect speech to me. So please don't stress about giving me a speech you think I'll like, give me your thoughts and answer to the question!

Speech:

Do you, take a breath and be confident. Have fun!

Theories/Ks:

I’ll listen to them but I probably won’t vote you up if you're using one, especially in PF. It’s my job to vote based on whoever affirms or negates the resolution better. Debate is educational, please come ready to debate a fair and educational round. Your topic may be super important but this is not the time or place and doesn’t allow for your opentent to learn or debate.

If you have any question about anything feel free to email me heggesamantha384@gmail.com. Good luck and have fun!

If you are in novice please run a K I think it’s funny. Intense XC is fine but just don’t be rude. I do not like long rambling in XC, please refrain from doing so.

Debated policy in high school and and at UK. I'm open to anything as long as you are comfortable with it, just be confident. If you have any specific questions feel free to ask!

I have very little knowledge on this years topic so do your thing with that in mind.

Email---sulaiman.asif.jamal@gmail.com

About me: I debated at Aberdeen Central, SD for 2 years the first being my freshman year where I competed in Public Forum and the latter being my senior year debating in Lincoln-Douglas where I was a national qualifier. With that being said, I have a good amount of knowledge in LD and not as much in PF so if you have me in PF I can try and keep up but just be concise on where you want things on the flow and where cards are being used

Speed/Signposting: If I had to put myself on a scale of speed I would say a 6.5/10. I can handle a bit of speed but if you go too fast I will get lost and lose a bunch of things on the flow. In terms of signposting, I am not great at writing down the names of cards but try as hard as I can so please just tell me a little bit about what your card says and make sure you're clear on where it is supposed to be on the flow.

Evidence: I am all for analytical arguments so you do not need a card for every single thing you're saying as long as your argument has rationality behind it. Thus, I am all for chain arguments, as long as the effects you are saying will happen, make sense, and you maintain the warrant behind the cause of the impacts. However, there is a fine line between analytics and nonsense. Make sure that if you are chaining arguments and impacts together, that you have some evidence backing up the impacts in the first place and then you can make your argument.

Prep Time: In general I am all for being lenient with prep time. Meaning that if you want to look at a card as long as it does not take over 10 seconds I will not start running prep time but if it starts taking too long, then yes I will start to run it. So just do not take forever looking at the card and you will be fine!

Voting: I want voters! Please tell me why you won the round and limit it to just a few issues anywhere from 2-4 is okay with me. When you explain your voters do not just say what your voter is and move on, explain what it is, where it has been impactful in the round, and explain why you are winning this issue!

Picky Things: In general I like to just go with the flow of the round but I do think that when you are pulling through evidence please tell me exactly what you are pulling through and why it matters do not just say "Extend Blahblah '23" try to explain what the card says and why it matters. You also do not need to spend forever on this. Just spend a few seconds refreshing me with what it means and why it matters.

LD: I am more of a traditionalist in how I view the round. I do not want Kritiks, this is South Dakota, not the national circuit so please use the traditional value/criterion framework with case impacts. In terms of framework, I am familiar with the basics and a few outliers just from my own experience debating LD as well as the fact that I am a History major with a Philosophy minor so I am familiar with philosophers who are a little out of the box. In general though, if you are running an abstract framework please make sure to explain what this framework is saying, how it is credible, and why I should even care about what this person is saying.

PF: As I said in the first section, I am not well-versed in PF so please take it slow. Do not just throw cards at me and expect me to know where you want me to put them. Just try and be organized in your speech by organizing your arguments and noting where you want me to write them down on the flow.

I vote based on who I thought won the round.

About me-

I judge novices. My name is Elijah Shirley, male, and I go by Ely (pronounced Eli). I’ve done a year of PF and a year of LD, and did some BQ at nationals (heheh). I’ve also done a little bit of duo and extemp on the side. LD is my main thing. I’m gen z, so if for some reason you want to know that going into your round, there you go. If it looks like I’m not paying attention to your speech I’m probably multitasking (flowing or writing comments); just keep talking.

Everything-

I’m a flow judge even if there’s nothing on the flow. Being a good speaker only gives you an advantage because I’m more likely to understand you (and because of subconscious biases or whatever). If each debater is clear enough for me to write arguments down properly, then I couldn’t care less who talks smoothly (other than for speaker points of course). If you make an argument, please repeat it every speech. Also, I will never vote off of cross examination, if you somehow get your opponent(s) in a bind during a questioning period, I will take note of it, but unless you actually bring it up in a speech I won’t even consider it by the end of the round. That being said, don’t be a jerk; stumbling something small or misspeaking doesn’t constitute a conviction. I’ll try to view the round based on what everybody means (as long as I don’t have to do any guess work), not on what everybody says. Finally, stay on topic. I’m unlikely to vote on anything thats based on some implication of the resolution rather than the resolution itself, mostly because I don’t expect to see it run well.Most debates I’ve seen are sub-par so don’t worry about how good you’re doing, just have fun.

LD-

If you think you’re running deontology, you’re actually running rule utilitarianism, but it’s functionally similar. I’m not huge on impacts. They will probably matter because everybody will run basic-ah consequentialism, but even then ideally I would be voting on the value debate. (Of course, this is a case by case basis. If theres not significant clash then impacts are quite important). I have an interest in ethics, so bonus points if you know what you’re talking about. (I like virtue ethics the bestest). You guys are LDers, so your my favorite. (Clap emoji).

PF-

I’m not following. Tell me where you are (on the flow), and how many responses you have. If you do that you’ll probably win because I will have your arguments written down, and not your opponents. (Ideally this wouldn’t be the case, but in my experience that’s what it comes down to in novice).Also, be consistent in your team; your partner should carry through everything you’re saying. (Again, whoever doesn’t drop anything usually wins in novice, even if it’s abysmal). Thanks.

Speech Events-

I’m not a speech person, so I don’t know what I’m supposed to be looking for. I won’t judge you like a traditional judge. I will just be voting on what I enjoyed the most and what seemed the most technically skilled, but my knowledge is limited. The exception is Extemp, in which case just do what you do, elaborate, and slow down.

BQ-

Idk. Do what you want as long as your opponents following along. I don’t think this section is even relevant to anybody, but if it is then I love definitions. Many definitions. Also please stay on the topic, I’d like the arguments to be very conceptual.

Congress-

If I’m your judge so help you god.

For LD novice prodigies-

If you’re running rule based consequentialism then I will likely be voting solely on probability; why is your moral rule more probable to cause benefits than the consequences your opponent is proposing. In this case you should still have impacts but they should function as a proof of concept for your rule.

YOU SHOULD PROBABLY NOT RUN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING IN NOVICE: (If you do, I’m rooting for you, but you probably wont win.)

If you’re running hard deontology then I won’t be voting on impacts, but you do need to explain why the position you’re supporting is rational or otherwise obliging, even when it may cause more suffering. Essentially, I’ll be looking for whatever’s more rational than pain and pleasure. The downside is if your opponents prove that I should care about consequences (in the way they’re proposing), then I am fully willing to vote for them even if that consequence is “mild discomfort.”

If you’re running virtue ethics then honestly you need to do something similar to deontology. Why should I care about flourishing or somebody's character more than tangible harms and benefits? If you don’t want to do that, and run it as some form of rule consequentialism with virtue as foundation for pleasure over pain, then just read my rule consequentialism section.

If you’re running a kritik just make sure your opponent fully understands what you want them to debate and why they should debate it. I like kritiks that are still loosely related to the topic, but will theoretically vote on any kritik.

If you’re running theory then I’m probably not going to buy it. For me to vote on a theory I have to personally believe it, and as far as I can tell right now everything seems fair when I’m sitting in a novice debate. If you’re opponents do something crazy and you’ve got a shell against it, then I might vote for you but this is a rare case.

Speed

Rapid conversational

I prefer quality arguments over quantity of arguments. Debate is educational; if your strategy is to spread the other team in the Rebuttal, that doesn't seem like you are trying to promote education. Being able to talk faster does not equate to being a better debater. That being said, I am not unreasonable; if you have to speak faster in the summaries to cover everything the other team put out, that is acceptable.

Theory/Kritik

I more than welcome you to use your speech time to advocate for any issues you believe in and to educate the people in the round; I am just not likely to give you the ballot for that.

Tips

I like to flow as much as I possibly can. So, if I am not writing anything down during your speeches, you are either not being clear in your argumentation or you have spent too much time covering the point; it is best to move on. Because I like to keep a detailed flow, I also appreciate a debater who is well organized in their signposting.

When I am thinking, I often make a very grumpy looking face. Don’t think I am in disagreement with what you are saying because of this.

In public forum, I believe that most summary speeches drop excessive amounts of arguments against their own case. If you are able to actually defend your case and respond to what the other team said in the previous speeches, you are much more likely to win. If time allows and you are able to do so, I wouldn’t mind a line-by-line of both cases in the summary speech. On the same note, if the other team does drop key arguments on case, these are easy wins in my book; please bring them up.

For the final focus, you should select two or three main voting issues. The last 15-20 seconds of the speech should be spent giving me impact calc and telling me what the Pro world vs. the Con world looks like. I also don't mind an overview at the top if that works better for you.

Roadmaps are off the clock for me

If you ask me to call for evidence for it to be evaluated, I will.

Please don't try and avoid giving the other team evidence by saying your partner will do it after the cross. I believe evidence transparency is a huge part of the debate, try to be as upfront as possible.

I can tell the difference between someone who is confident and standing their ground, and someone who is using rudeness as a way to make it look like they know more than they do. If being rude is part of your pathos as a debater, I don't think you're doing it right.

Policy-I have debated it before. I do not judge it often. I do not coach it. Most likely, I am not familiar with the topic. Policy maker.

LD- I have not debated it before. I do not judge it often. I do not coach it. Most likely, I am not familiar with the topic. Good luck.

General - I will vote on whichever arguments I buy more. ALWAYS explain the why behind your arguments. I love hearing the phrase "here's why this matters" after you make a claim or present an argument. If I don't buy your evidence, I will call for it. I keep a pretty decent flow so don't be scared to refer to the flow and the points made/dropped. Make sure to tell me where you're at on the flow as well. In every final speech of every style of debate, please give me clear voters. A final general piece of info, please do not be super rude in your rounds. There is a CLEAR line between confidence and just being mean. If you're being mean, I'll find a way to vote you down. I'm all for a little salt every now and then, but make sure it is justified.

Speed - You can go as fast as you want as long as you can articulate well. I was a policy debater for three years so I can handle speed. I won't flow what you're saying if I don't understand you. Additionally, do not go fast just to go fast. Make sure what you're saying actually applies to the debate at hand. Don't read me a disad that has absolutely no link as a timesuck.

Theories/Ks - If you want to read these, go for it. I'm all for hearing it IF it actually applies to the round AND the topic. I will not vote for something that has nothing to do with the topic. I will vote for the other team if you read a K that has absolutely NO link. Debate is supposed to be educational. Therefore, I expect to be educated on the topic. When it comes to specific theories, make sure you explain what they are and WHY you're running them. Your voters better be excellent if you want me to vote on it. I have voted on theory before because of really good voters.

LD - I weigh framework over contention level in the debate. Please for the love of all things do not run a random framework just to run a random framework. It needs to make at least 75% sense in the context of both the topic and the debate. That means you should probably be explaining a clear link to me. Please do not turn LD into a policy or pufo round. They are separate debate categories for a reason.

TOPIC SPECIFIC - If you're going to trash the United States military, please be aware that I am marrying a man in the military and I find it extremely offensive when competitors say ALL US soldiers are bad. For example - please don't tell me that ALL US military soldiers are complicit in human trafficking. Additionally, if you are going to discuss the Israel/Gaza war, please be considerate that all people have different views and that's OKAY!!! Debate is an educational space and I expect everyone in the round to be RESPECTFUL. If I am being screamed at or I feel uncomfortable because you say something offensive on either side of the debate, I will vote you down. Not appropriate for a high school activity.

Hello!

I am an LD coach at Edina, and competed in South Dakota with a traditional debate background. With that in mind, here are a few of my preferences.

For LD:

You have to win the Value. It doesn't necessarily have to be your FW, but you have to win it in order to win the round. It is your obligation to show the moral obligation of the actor/actors in the resolution through the framework you present. If you drop framework entirely you will make me sad :(

I am okay with speed as long as you are clear.

Your roadmap should be just aff neg and or voters. If it is any longer I will start to get annoyed. On that note, please come into the round preflowed so we can get started immediately.

If you are mean, I will vote you down and doc your speaks. This is an educational activity, and being mean prohibits a fun and educational learning environment.

You need to make your link to the resolution clear. I am skeptical about nuke war/ extinction impacts. If you are running something like this you need to really convince me that it is possible.

On the same note, If your impact has nothing to do with the resolution- it won't be weighed in the round.

If you notice that I have stopped flowing in round, there is a good chance that you have lost me on the flow or you are just repeating things.

Please make sure you are sign-posting. I don't want to guess where to put an argument on the flow.

Make writing the ballot super easy for me :)

Good luck, and remember to have fun! If you have any questions- feel free to ask!