The Constellation Invitational
2024 — Orlando, FL/US
Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideParent judge with experience judging humorous interpretation, impromptu, original oratory, public forum and Lincoln Douglas. I am ok with fast speakers, as long as you are clear and articulate in your argument.
I value confidence, respect for your opponent, and a clear speaking voice.
I volunteer to judge these events because I respect and value the time and dedication each student puts into their arguments.
Good Luck and have fun!
My favorite event is Extemp, so I treat all debaters like I would a national finalist in Extemp. Talk at a human pace so that the audience can understand the debate, but feel free to extend your impacts as far as possible pending you keep up the warrants for each claim. Impact turns make debate more fun, try to turn them. Work to cross apply your contentions to your opponents impacts. Making voting claims that I missed during the round won't be used to judge the round. The speakers have a duty to communicate what they want the audience to hear, the judge has a duty to listen to the best of their ability and shouldn't feel burdened by advanced debaters who go beyond the judge's means. I've got a PhD in Communication Studies and embrace a qualitative perspective, values matter. Be smart, be concise, and be respectful. If you can deliver the argument well, feel free to also be creative. For what it's worth, demanding language is a peeve, as opposed to suggestive; in voters, please tell me what I should(n't) do rather than what I can't do.
I graduated from Cypress Bay in 2020, and have coached their LD squad since.
I would like to be on the chain: garrett.bishop2577@gmail.com
I'm probably pretty good for anything.
In order:
K, LARP, existentialism, other philosophy, theory-dense positions.
> Post-Yale update: You gotta understand that it's like, K > Policy >>>>>>>> Existentialism >>>>>>>>>>> Other philosophy >>>>>>> theory-dense positions.
Yes, I'm probably good for it, but it seems like I voted twice on phil positions and suddenly everybody has me down as a phil judge
>Bronx 24:If disclosure theory is a part of your main strategy, i should not be a high pref for you. it's a true argument but oh my god im so tired of listening to it. i'm also absolutely just about never persuaded by 1ac disclosure theory.
My disclosure of speaks depends entirely on my mood at the time, and if you ask me after I've already closed my laptop, I will not tell you (I forget about speaks, give or take, a single second after I submit my ballot).
If you care, I'm more of a high theory guy than an identity politics guy.
If you're super fast, feel free to tell me that I should flow on paper (before the round). I recently started flowing on my computer and I'm not super fast with it yet.
I've only made one decision that I didn't entirely agree with, and I'm unlikely to make a second.
PF
I don't care what you read, as long as you read it well. If you expect me to judge your debate based on my circuit experience, then you should probably try to meet my circuit expectations. This means I'm particularly persuaded by disclosure and paraphrasing theory. The Bronx update doesn't really apply here - it isn't yet a norm in public forum to disclose and it definitely should be, so it's above my threshold of importance in this event.
Policy
This is kind of where my heart is tbh. I'm good to go for whatever goofy argument you want to read.
Any other event (speech)
I'm a big debate guy, please treat me like a parent lol.
Old paradigm here
the big cheese
About me: I'm Mr. Bravim (pronounced brah-veem). 25 yrs. in speech & debate. Competed, judged, and coached all over.
Email: bravim@cghsfl.org
* LD Prefs
I will consider any warranted argument presented in round. Please weigh clearly and effectively and lay out the big issues in the round/voters. Tell me the clearest path to the ballot! I do not want to intervene. I find a quality framework debate/clash VERY interesting. If the fw clash is circular and/or the differentiation is minimal, go for something else or find a new angle on fw. I'm comfortable voting on framework if you tell me why I should and win the argument.
Slow down a bit on card tags, warrants, weighing , and voters. If the framework clash is a wash, I'll default to evaluating contention-level offense via the weighing analysis given to me at the end of the round. If I don't understand what you're talking about (speed, lack of clarity, lack of explanation, or warrants), there is NO CHANCE I'll vote off it. Thus, explain the argument/warrants not only in case, but throughout the round if you want me to vote off of it.
Spend time contextualizing your card/s if you're relying on it to win the round. Even if it was already done in your constructive, it's a good habit to cover it thoroughly a 2nd time in case I missed something.
Do not drop warrants in your extensions. I may not have gotten it in case and even if I did, I like to be reminded. Will not evaluate any argument in which the warrant is missing or unclear.
--<< Logos / Ethos / Pathos >>-- (please don't forget that all three are part of good debate)
Above all else, I favor clash and the resolution of clash by debaters with good overviews, weighing, and depth of topic knowledge.
In order of preference:
1.) Trad 2.) Plan/CPs 3.) Ks 4.) Theory
I find most theory debates dull, but will listen to them if that's what you want to do. I've voted off theory maybe 4-5 times and judged a lot of LD rounds. I prefer you try to win anywhere else unless there is a flagrant, obvious, and clear violation of tournament rules or NSDA rules. Above all, the quality of argument matters more to me than the style of debate. I don't mind some speed used strategically, but please don't spread throughout the round. I'd much rather you win one good argument on the flow and weigh than 10 smaller ones that I struggle to follow because of speed/clarity issues.
* PF Prefs
Overview: I remember the reasons PF was introduced as an event in 2002. The spirit of PF necessitates a somewhat less technical, but ultimately more persuasive debate activity than either policy or circuit LD. The idea that hyper-technical arguments would be advanced knowing the opponents will have problems even understanding what the argument is about is abhorrent to me. This lacks in educational value and fairness. That said, I understand any event will evolve over 22+ years and there are going to be different ways to gain in-round advantage. I think running Ks, theory, and spreading should not be the norm in Public Forum. I think topical arguments with really good warrants and evidence are the best path for PF debaters. I think the round should be educational and accessible for teams, judges, and any observer who wishes to spectate the round. The notion that the only "good" debate is nat circuit-oriented is not only arrogant, but also wrong. I've witnessed well over 1,000 debate rounds and have seen poor argumentation all over the place.
I favor a lot of clash, well-developed links analysis, and an aggressive style of debate. Indicting evidence with quality arguments on why it matters in the context of the round impresses me. I enjoy pointed crossfire and will flow concessions and hold teams to them. Warrant everything. DO NOT DROP WARRANTS in your extensions. In PF, remind me of the big picture from summary onward. I like weighing and meta-weighing.
Keep a consistent link story on your offense. If you have a particular lens (framework, observation, etc.) in which I should view the resolution, make sure it is well-warranted and extend throughout the round. I like clear framing mechanisms. I prefer a smaller # of voters (1 - 3) to many poorly-explained voters in FF. Weigh or risk judge intervention (I don't want to do it). You can't win on the flow if you don't tell me why the arguments matter by the end of the round.
On speed: Moderate, occasional, and strategic use of speed in PF is OK if the other team + all the judges can follow you. Never sacrifice clarity for speed. My preferred speed is around 170-180 wpm in case and 180-190 wpm in rebuttal. Don't bully your opponent with speed. That is not why PF was created. The vast majority of your speech should be understood by an ordinary person with no background in debate if you're doing it right. I much rather teams win 1 significant argument over a bunch of smaller, less-developed arguments on the flow. I dislike spreading in any debate event, but most especially in PF.
Evidence comparison is critical and a good way to impress. Please make warranted arguments why I should prefer your card over your opponent's card. There are many ways to accomplish this, I'll consider any of them so long as they make sense. FYI: One relevant, high-quality card is often better than 2 - 3 generic cards that are not contextualized. Extend card tags on every speech. Knowing your evidence really well and explaining it really well in round all but guarantees high speaks.
On theory: I find the majority of theory rounds dull and the arguments thin. I much rather you win on something else, but will listen if this is your thing. I have a high bar voting on disclosure theory in PF, so if you do it--make sure to do it very well!
You can go line-by-line or be more analytical. Anything that is unclear will not get extended or weighed on the flow. Never forget that debate is foremost a PERSUASIVE activity. If you cannot persuade the average person with your case, you aren’t debating effectively. Ways to impress me as a judge: 1. Depth of Analysis, 2. Topic Knowledge, 3. Effective Advocacy, and 4. Clear Narrative. I value meaningful cross much more than most judges.
A pet peeve of mine in PF is summary treated as a 2nd rebuttal speech. That is not the point of summary! Show me the most important issues and why they favor your side, we already had 2 rebuttal speeches and summary is more than a shortened rebuttal.
On Politics: I enjoy politics-based arguments. I'm well-read and read the news daily from a variety of sources, both US-based and international. If you advance an argument that is definitely wrong, or very probably wrong in terms of truth, I will have a higher bar on your winning the argument on the flow, but it is still possible depending on what your opponent does in response.
I enjoy arguments with international impacts and links more than most judges. I've lived in China and South Korea, so I have above-average knowledge on Asia-Pacific rim security issues from reading up on them for the last 15 yrs. and living there. That said, I also enjoy learning new things that are outside my areas of expertise, so feel free to educate me on regional or international issues from anywhere, especially concerning the Septober resolution.
--<< Logos / Ethos / Pathos >>-- all 3 are part of effective argumentation
PLEASE WEIGH
* Congress Prefs
I despise 1-sided debate. If there's no one left on the other side, call the previous question, table the bill, or deliver an impromptu/extemp speech on the other side. If I hear the same exact points made without specific references to the arguments presented by the other side, points will be low.
I love clash in congress. I like pointed, direct questioning. I'm impressed by tactical use of parliamentary procedure. I value the role of the P.O. more than most. Don't be shy about running for P.O. If you're good at it, do it and I'll rank you fairly!
Critical evidence comparison & strong topic knowledge impress me a lot. Creative and/or funny intros make me happy.
* Big Questions
No preference between real-world and philosophical evidence, but a combination is powerful! I like framing. I like big picture analysis. I like extended warrants. Pointed questioning and strong topic knowledge impress me a lot and should help you win a ballot in a close round.
Most of my experience judging BQ was in 2020 when Nationals was online. I approach BQ like a less flow-centric traditional LD round and the person who most clearly frames and resolves the "big question" will win the round, regardless of the flow. Each debater should aim to do that. I like this event and love the current topic. I wish BQ Debate were more mainstream outside of NSDA Nationals. FYI: I have above average knowledge on world religion and the history of science, but I will only use what you tell me in round.
PET PEEVES
1. Taking too long to set up for debate. (Be prepared, be punctual, be professional)
2. Taking too long to pull a called card from case (after 1 min. if the card doesn’t exist, drop the arg.)
3. Doc bots.
4. Boring me. Some have forgotten that there is a performance aspect to ALL debate events and that if you seem apathetic, I will care less about your argument if you don't appear to care about it. If you want me to vote for your argument, make the attempt to seem like you care about whatever you're running. You chose to run that. It's your baby.
Note: I don't disclose speaker points. Don't ask. I will disclose my decision if the tournament is single-flighted. If rounds are double-flighted, I will not disclose for the sake of time, but will publish my ballot.
FOR FUN
I <3 multivolume narrative nonfiction, dystopian & post-apocalyptic fiction, retro video games (mostly fighters), boxing, soccer, and cats. If you're bored at a tournament and have an interest in any of that stuff, come say hi! : )
Academic Interests:
I teach AP World History, AP European History, and AP Economics on the high school level. I teach various business courses at the university level.
Topics in which I have some specialized knowledge include: world religion, modern history, organizational culture, business management, video games (esp. 90s & early 2000s era fighting games) and current events.
Good luck to all!
This has been updated since DTA 2024 It's been simplified substantially depending on when you last read it.
- yes add me to the email chain: chmielewskigr@gmail.com
*"New AFFs" are affirmatives that have not been read by you, a teammate, your prep group, or another school. To be read as 'new,' none of the evidence in the AFF should have been read before. If evidence has been read before, the evidence should be disclosed to your opponent. Changing tags/how a card is cut does not make an affirmative new. If you break 'New' and your affirmative is not new - your speaks are capped at a 25 in prelims and I will have a very low bar for voting against you on disclosure in elims.
Short intro:
If the given argument is a wash or it requires me to intervene or do deep analysis on my own that's not on the flow I tend to look elsewhere as I think less intervention is better.
(LD)
I will take off a speaker point every time you say "they don't have a card for that" without justifying why that matters. It makes me think you couldn't find a better response on the flow so you took the easy way out.
Do NOT be that person that asks me to pre-flow before the round. If you ask me, I'm starting your prep time should you chose to ignore me and pre-flow anyways. It will also hurt your speaks. Be prepared.. you had plenty of time to do this either before round or before the tournament.
Please signpost. If I have to guess where it is on the flow I'm not flowing and that only hurts you.
If I have to tell people to weigh correctly one more time my hair is gonna Uncle Iroh. Please debate properly.
1- LARP/Phil
LARP- yeah whatever give me your policy case I'll evaluate it.
Phil- please please please tell me how you clash with the opp don't just read me a bunch of Phil and expect me to magically grant you the magic carpet to the ballot.
Before the same person asks me about phil, yes I'll consider and can comprehend Hobbes/Kant/insert your stock phil person here. Yes, I think most of those ivis about those people are extremely lazy debate. This is put here to clarify when I get asked by people what phil I will/won't be persuaded by. If you have further questions yes I can clarify.
1- Theory/Trix
Theory- I'm cool with whatever. If you run friv theory I'm gonna have a low response threshold. If you spend your entire speech with whiny theory it will annoy me but I'll vote for it if I have to.
Trix- Yes I think they're useful, yes I like them. If you run trix like the aff can't have arguments and your tricks are especially egregious it'll have me looking elsewhere on the flow. If you have questions, ASK ME. I overheard somebody I judged at Blue Key whining about how I evaluate trix. If you don't clearly evaluate them, you risk a coin flip. More analysis on one to two trix> more trix extensions
Trix addendum- if you run a bunch of nibs etc and then don't do the work to properly extend them no I'm not voting for them. Just because I pref something a 1 doesn't mean you can do lazy analytical work or bare minimum extensions and expect me to buy them. No, a 10 second extension doesn't cut it. Don't read this at your own risk.
Trix addendum 1.2-If you read me an indexical, please explain it to me as I'm not overly familiar with them but can vote on it if explained super well
1.5- On T violations- if you give me a TVA and your opp drops it and you collapse on the T shell I'll vote on it in half a second (Update from Glenbrooks experience with a super super well done TVA)
2- K
- Please give me a functional alt. No, reject the [insert side] is NOT an alt. I'll consider just about any K but pleeeease explain the link clearly.
3- Identity stuff- I don't know the lit but will vote on it if explained well enough
4- High theory
Strike- non topical affs
- The resolution exists for a reason.
Strike- performance cases
- nope, find somebody else. I don't know how to evaluate it and you'll probably lose. Sorry.
Presumption-neg
Permissibility- aff
I heavily value contextualized extensions. I've seen far too many people punt a winnable round on crappy extensions.
Addendum re: extensions- I've dropped people because I didn't think that they full contextualized something and went hard enough for it. Blip extensions at your own risk. If you have questions about a bright line, ask me before the round starts.
- Tech> Truth
- If you're in my district and I'm judging you and we keep this virtual debate thing going and you want more clarity on a round and want coach to reach out to me via email or at a CFL/FCDI, they can either email me or find me at a tournament and I'm more than happy to go over the round. Additionally, if you're in need/want resources on specific things that you want to work on I'll see what I have in my backfiles. More education for ALL is a good thing. Debate is about learning.
[Insert default don't be transphobic/etc here]. Just don't. This is an inclusive activity, don't make this a non-inclusive space for people.
PF Prefs:
A) I refuse to vote for paraphrased evidence. Ever. Yes, really. I'll default to paraphrase theory if it's read and extended because I think paraphrasing has zero place in the activity. Your ability to misinterpret authors does not amuse me or give you access to my ballot.
B) Please signpost. If I have to guess where it is on the flow I'm not flowing and that only hurts you
C) If you don't weigh I'm gonna go for the bigger number absent a separate compelling reason to interpret the evidence a different way.
D) If you can't produce the evidence your opponent asks for within about 45 seconds I'm treating it as an analytic, not evidence. Be organized and prepared for debate.
E) Do NOT be that person that asks me to pre-flow before the round. If you ask me, I'm starting your prep time should you chose to ignore me and pre-flow anyways or letting your opponent speak if they're first speaker. It will also hurt your speaks. Be prepared.. you had plenty of time to do this either before round or before the tournament.
F) If you don't mention it in the summary don't mention it in the final focus because I won't evaluate it.
H) Defense sticks once applied unless rebutted BUT I think it's helpful to reinforce in summ/ff where the opp fails to garner offense if you think it's a round decider. If I think it's too messy, I'm ultimately going to punt on it as I don't want to potentially intervene.
I agree with fast pf and theory thoughts in PF of Charles Karcher. No, I don't think paraphrasing and/or spreading a bajillion cards or reading some irrelevant abuse story makes it more likely to get my ballot.
-
Congress
- I largely agree with Quentin Scruggs/Grace Wigginton on Congress. If you want to know what that means, use the paradigm button :)
Policy
* Honestly just kinda look at my LD stuff. There's not a lot you can read I won't understand, but I may need you to explain some of the warranting since that's been lacking in some rounds I've seen.
I've been a debate coach for roughly 15 years. I was also a varsity debater in Policy and LD at the University of Florida from 1989 to 1992. I like a good respectful debate. I also don't mind technical arguments and kritiks, etc. Anyway, have a great time today. Debate is really awesome.
Dear Contestants,
I expect to see and hear a clear, succinct presentation of your work. I have a teaching background in healthcare and listen and judge clinical presentations. I appreciate positive, non-confrontational attitude from participants. Please try to avoid talking over each other.
Thanks, and good luck.
I have judged LD and PF debates for three years and probably have done close to 10 tournaments.
I will decide winner based on person/team that persuaded me more on their positions.
The rate of delivery does not have a positive or negative impact on my decisions.
I will rely heavily on facts and evidence given throughout the debate.
Jason Lucas
I have spent 7 years as a speech & debate coach, and I would say that if you needed to classify me I would likely be considered a "classical style" judge. That being said, this is how I would describe my beliefs for debate...
- Please make certain to link your arguments as I cannot assume your reasoning is valid.
- I will not say no to theory or kritik but will say that I've rarely seen it used well enough to convince me, so I would be careful in using these arguments.
- I am STRONGLY opposed to spreading. I flow fairly well, but I would say QUALITY over QUANTITY, and that if I did not hear you say it, then you didn't say it. As this is a "public speaking event" and as both opponents are supposed to receive equal time and consideration from the judge, I see very little value in flashing cases. Make your arguments during the round please, as I can only judge you on the arguments you make.
- At the end of the day I will be looking at your entire debate and want to feel that you are more "right" in the round. Please make certain to weigh your impacts and provide me with solid voters as to why you have won the debate. I will care much more about your arguments being presented and linked believably, authentically, and logically than being 'ahead" on the offensive flow.
Intro
Hi, I’m Heather. I am a parent judge and Team Mom for Olympia High School. I have been judging mostly local circuit debate for three years.
-Please add me to the email chain – hniemas@comcast.net
-I am not great with spreading and would prefer a slower speed.
-I am not very familiar with progressive arguments and would prefer not to judge kritiks, theory, tricks, LARP, and non-T cases.
-Keep the debate as traditional as possible.
-I do not disclose post round.
General Stuff
-Make sure you understand and can thoroughly explain the philosophy you are running.
-Please read evidence and warrant your frameworks.
-I am familiar with Util, MSV, Lib, and a few others.
-The most important component to success is strong relevant evidence and strong warranting for your arguments.
-You must properly extend your arguments in EACH rebuttal for me to take them into account on the ballot.
-I will not evaluate new or responses to dropped arguments in the 2nr/2ar.
-Don’t just say your evidence is better WEIGH, explain to me why/how it's better.
Other
-Hate speech or slurs against your opponent will result in me dropping you.
-Don’t spread without consent/speech doc.
-Be nice and have fun, we are all giving up our weekend for this.
- Competed LD + PF in HS
- Trad Judge
- keep a flow
- Don’t mind speed
- Don’t love prog debates
- No other preferences
Hello, I am a lay judge. Please do not run any progressive arguments or speak at a high pace. I only know traditional forms of debate.
I'll keep notes but I may not be able to catch everything in round, re-emphasizing important points will be very helpful.
The main thing for me is the quality and effectiveness of your arguments in round. Your speaking abilities won't affect my decision but will affect speaker points. However if you're unintelligible I cannot judge you, as long as you're clear, we are good.
Insulting your opponent is never ok and will definitely be brought into my decision, keep the debate civil.
Being calm and collected is a good attribute to have, and what I prefer you to speak with.
I am a lay/parent judge. I enjoy a spirited, yet civil, debate. I dislike over-reliance on technology. Avoid spreading. Keep your time. Integrity matters. I have particular distaste for instances where a debater will conclude by misquoting an opponent at the end of a round. Help me help you by articulating your arguments and telling me why you should win.
I vote off the flow. I don't mind debate jargon, but I may ask you to clarify some terms. Don't spread or talk too fast (200 wpm is the max where I can still catch everything you say). I will ask you to slow down if I'm missing arguments. I may ask you after the round for cards and evidence, so don't run out of the room until I've let you go. Be respectful in cross. I will not tolerate Ad Hominem attacks (attacks against your opponent and not their argument). I do not like theory arguments that are off topic and trying to be "clever" to win on technicalities. I will likely not vote on it, especially if you are abusing it.
LD: I have a background as a philosophy professor. Please make your value and value criterion clear and carry them throughout the round. Don't turn this into a 1 person policy round. I prefer more traditional LD arguments. If you are going to try to tell me that mass extinction is good, for example, it better have some hard evidence and strong logic backing it up.
PF: Make sure your arguments all make logical sense. I probably will not vote on Kritiks or weird theory. I prefer you have evidence to back up your claims but it is not always needed for logical arguments. Please present me with clear impacts and carry them throughout the round.
Feel free to ask me questions after round (if this is a tournament where judges disclose), but know that I have already submitted my ballot so please don't try to convince me why my decision was wrong. If you want to set up an email chain, my email is josephmpergola@gmail.com
I've judged rounds of: Public Forum, Congress, Lincoln-Douglas, Extemporaneous Speaking, Original Oratory, Informative Speaking, Interpretation of Literature, and Impromptu Speaking.
Strong debaters have a balance of facts, statistics, engaging rhetoric and clear delivery. Help me flow! I like lots of taglines and signposting, even during cross ex. If you're speaking fast, make sure you're not sacrificing clarity. Although I don't prefer when competitors spread, I can understand what they are saying (during the cross examination sessions). If you're interrupting your opponent habitually, it may count against you.
The winning team / debater is able to deliver and extend strong, well-supported, and prepared arguments while pointing out and breaking down flaws in the opponent's arguments.
Scroll down for trad/NCFL
I prefer to use speech drop or the tournament file share, but please feel free to email me any questions or concerns at lesliedebate2027@gmail.com. (she/her)
Progressive/Circuit
I will vote on basically anything as long as I can understand it. However, I will not vote on any argument that make the debate space unsafe, which includes but is not limited to racist/sexist/homophobic arguments.
Spreading is fine, just make sure to send out speech docs. If you don't send out speech docs, I probably won't be able to keep up, so I would recommend going at about 75% of your maximum pace. If you skip or don't read more than 1 thing on the doc, please send out a marked doc after your speech is over.
I'm most comfortable with judging policy, then Ks, theory, and phil. I am unlikely to vote for a completely non-topical aff (although I have done so) but I just need a few lines tying your case to the topic. I'm fine with ROB and IVIs.
Tricks: I'm not well-versed in tricks but if you explain it in an understandable way, I will vote on it. I would like judge tricks if you’re willing to take a chance.
Disclosure: My standard for disclosure is sending out the aff at the request of the opponent 30 minutes before the round starts. This does not apply to trad affs or completely new affs. If you are using most of the same cards even if they are used differently, that is not a new aff. If you will be running disclosure theory, please include all communication between you and your opponent in the doc and any supporting evidence. If you just say they ran this same aff in round 3 but only include a screen shot of the name of the aff from the earlier round, that is not going to be enough for me.
Frivolous Theory: I’m now willing to judge friv theory. Debate is a game let’s have some fun with it. Regular theory is fine too.
Miscellaneous
I will increase speaker points for interesting arguments I don't commonly hear. I try to be as tab as possible. I have voted against my own political beliefs numerous times and also for somewhat absurd arguments like trees are bad for the environment due to forest fires.
-Evidence ethics: Don't misrepresent evidence or clip cards. It's an automatic loss for me.
-I am impressed by a really good CX. I do not enjoy the Oppression Olympics so please try find another way to counter an identity K.
Traditional/NCFL
I will flow the debate and keep track of arguments, refutations, and dropped arguments. However the debater needs to bring up that the opponent has dropped a contention for me to count it. Please do not say that your opponent dropped something unless you are certain that they did.
Please include voters in your final round/speech. If I feel that round is too close to call, I will default to who won the framework debate.
Please be kind to novices or newer circuit debaters. Win the round but help them to learn something from it. Why does a spoon made of gallium disappear?
if you’re going to tell me that your opponent’s argument will lead to nuclear war, please give me some solid reason why this is more likely than just the everyday chance of nuclear war.
Please feel free to ask me any questions before the round begins.
I am a lay judge.
I don't mind contestants tracking their own time, but my timer is the final arbiter.
Please try to speak clearly and with a normal cadence, i.e. try not to speak fast.
I am a parent judge. Extremely "lay".
Please no spreading or really complicated jargon. I most likely won't be able to understand progressive arguments, so it won't help you win the ballot. Keep your time and your opponents time as well, preferably with an alarm, because I'm not really familiar with the speech times. That's at your own discretion though.
About me:
I am a busy mom of 5 children (12,16,18,18,20) one of whom competes in speech, so I am no stranger to a lot of discussions, debates, arguments and research.
I judge with an open mind, keeping my political views in my back pocket. I judge debates on a mix of flow and overall presentation. Delivery of arguments with clear links and sources will have a great impact on your score.
I do not favor fast speech. I want to understand your position with clear annunciation and good flow. You will lose me if you constantly jumble your words because you are speaking too fast and gasping for air.
I do take notes to help with my overall decisions.
Respect for your opponent is a must before, during and after your debate. Being mean is a waste of energy.
Lastly, no matter where you place in today's tournament know you're an amazing individual!
high speaks if you make a topical big chungus refernce. youre welcome dylan
sup my name is roberto sosa, i go to cardinal gibbons and im a rising junior
TLDR i will vote on any warranted arg as long as it isnt racist/sexist/homophobic and etc just if i think its a bad arg ur speaks probs wont look great
trigger warnings r a good thing and u should give them if ur depicting graphic violence
ive changed my mind i really dont like larp unless ur gonna make it a really clear round
order of what i think is cool
Phil (not tricks)- 1
Theory/T- 1
K- 1/2 depending on the K
Tricks- 2/3 depending on how creative you are
LARP- 5 its so boring
order of how comfortable i am evaluating each
Phil-1
Theory/t- 1
K-1/2/3 depending on the K
Tricks-1
Larp- 3
more in depth thoughts:
phil
yeah i like this
id like to think i know a lot about ethics/ political theory and i think these args are p cool
some of my favorite authors are mouffe and levinas
if you're making a preclusion arg dont just say your fw precludes theirs, pls warrant and explain
same for hijack args
theory/t
i default to competing interps no rvis dtd
fairness is a voter and probs comes before education but i can easily be convinced otherwise
pls weigh weigh weigh, theory is so annoying when people dont weigh
friv theory shells are fine
k
also weigh
i prefer short OV and then LBL more than OV with lots of interaction but at the end of the day its your choice
the Ks im most familiar w are lacan, various queer theory authors and cap but i'll evaluate anything
if you're reading like baudy or something try not to be overly jargony
im not voting on a floating pik unless you hint to it being a pik in the 1n
creatively topical kaffs are super cool imo
same for other k tricks, hint at them in the 1n
tricks
i think creative tricks are cool
i think non creative tricks are boring
dont be ableist. ur speaks will suck. ill be easily persuaded by ableism args
please dont extemp random shit in the middle of a card or something
i changed my mind im not voting on eval x after y, if you read it anyways ur getting an L
if ur reading spikes delineate them or im not flowing it
larp
yeah i think this is boring but ill evaluate it
please read an actual util syllogism with warrants, not just the baseless assertions that seem to be common
weigh
condo is fine ig
probs will have a hard time evaluating a really close round
epistemic modesty: dont.
extra notes
if you bully nathan reed, dylan jones, or phoenix pittman ur speaks will be high
if you spent 20 seconds of your 2n or 10 seconds of your 2ar explaining why tacobell is bad you will also get high speaks
I want you hear your best arguments, but I need to understand your words to effectively judge you, so read this as I value clarity over speed. Further, I applaud assertiveness but will penalize for aggression as civility is of paramount importance in all debates.
Debaters who can present a strong case with logic and evidence, effectively refuting their opponent's case, and ultimately proving their value set will win. If both debaters are equal on contentions and rebuttals, I decide the round on which value holds up. I expect competitors to connect their contentions and evidence and support material(s) to their value and value criterion. Competitors addressing voting points are important to my decision and I firmly feel that all arguments should clearly connect back to the value and value criterion.
More generically, I look at your entire debate and expect you to prove you are "more right". Provide me a believable, authentic, and logical flow which ends with a a clear articulation as to why you have won the debate (i.e. conclude your argument properly).
Remember, your job is to prepare, listen, adapt, communicate, and persuade.
I'm lay. Speak slow.
-written by the son of James Wayne
I prefer a clear, evidenced-based debate.
Don't let my experience fool you into thinking I like fast, jargony debates.
Use an email chain - include me (lizannwood@hotmail.com) on it, and be honest about the evidence. Paraphrasing is one of my biggest pet peeves. (Post-rounding and making me wait for endless exchanges of evidence are the others).
I will leave my camera on, so you can see me. You can trust you have my full attention, and if connectivity issues affect any of the speeches, I'll audibly interrupt you and stop the timer till connections improve (within reason, of course).
If the timer is stopped, no one is prepping.
Avoid talking over each other online -it makes it impossible for your judges to hear either of you.
Don't be rude or condescending. You can be authoritative while also being polite.
Experience:
Mountain Brook Schools Director of Speech and Debate 2013 - current
Mountain Brook High School debate coach 2012-2013
Thompson High School policy debater 1991-1995
Ken Williams
passionate listener speaker and leader. I enjoy spirited respectful debates.
Hello Debaters! I am a parent judge. I am open to your ideas and am more impressed with your well-supported relevant points than I am with lots of facts that offer questionable support for your position. I do not have a preference on the speed at which you speak.