Middle School Cherokee Challenge
2019 — Canton, GA/US
Public Forum Judges Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideUpdated for ’24-’25. If there’s anything not covered in here (tried to be as extensive as possible), just ask, but if it’s something like “are you good with counterplans” I might be v sad.
For locals: not lay, to reduce your burden, unless you’re experienced w/ non-traditional args, you need only concern yourself with the “traditional” section, pls cut out argumentative dogmatism. Few notes: a) please learn to flow, asking what was/n’t read starts CX/prep, b) be responsive and clash w/ your opp (stop sending the 1NC before the 1AC has been read.), c) not big on disclosure theory at locals.*
Please read for locals: if you're sending a doc, please send a word doc formatted to circuit standards. If you aren't sure what this means, ask your coach or myself before the round. I would honestly prefer that we stop using email chains for lay rounds (flowing is important).
About: 4 years of LD at a GA HS, currently a master’s student at UGA (’24, ’24), have judged on the circuit and locally since 2021. I coach LD—will be familiar with the rez.
- Pronouns: they/she.
- Yes, I want to be on the chain (chansey.agler@gmail.com), speechdrop and fileshare on tab are fine; I won’t look at google docs, PDFs are inadvisable
- Fine w flex prep
- Pls don’t try and shake my hand after the round thx in advance; ask me for permission before recording an RFD
Speaks:
- Speed is fine if you’re clear, but if it’s the first round of the tournament or the day, pls start at like 60-70% speed and work up from there
- I appreciate slowing down on advocacy texts, interp texts, criterion/standard texts…basically anything you want me to get as close to verbatim as possible
- Similarly, I often find that I need more signposting and slight time to switch between flows—audibly saying “onto the DA” and pausing for a second, etc. is extremely helpful in rebuttal speeches
- I base speaker points off efficiency, strategy, and clarity foremost—I don’t base these off arbitrary/ableist/historically sexist and racist metrics—will play behind the scenes to balance historic marginalization of women, gender minorities, POCs, and otherwise marginalized voices in speaks, will often lower speaks for split 2NRs
- I typically average ~28.5 relative to the pool, no I do not disclose speaks
Prefs Cheat Sheet:
Ks, Policy: 1
Traditional: 2
Philosophy*: 2
Theory: 4
Tricks: 4
TL;DR: collapse, weigh, common sense is important, read complete arguments, do more link work
Top-level/must knows:
1. I will vote on most arguments. I am probably better for policy and K arguments (method debates are fine). I’m experienced w/ philosophy but LD’s execution isn’t great. Theory or tricks-heavy strats need to be complete arguments, not ad homs, and have real warrants. Meaningful, resolvable, complete arguments are good. Hail marys are inadvisable regardless of stylistic decisions.
2. Explanation, weighing, clash, and judge instruction are crucial. Do more resolving interactions between things, not just telling me “x matters before y” if your opponent is telling me “y matters before x.” Yes tech > truth in that I resolve rounds based on judge instruction (aka the flow), am open to many args and lit bases, but truth matters in the sense that args start at zero and go up from there. Weighing relies on good args. If I didn’t understand it, I can’t vote on it.
3. A lot of judges give awful RFDs. I think there is an ongoing problem in debate of not paying attention to the round. I am trying my damndest not to be that, but there’s greater uncertainty in my decision when there’s more work I must do—explaining arguments, doing link weighing (not just impx), and carving a path to the ballot will influence my decision. Best RFDs come when the 2NR/2AR writes my ballot for me. Questions afterwards are fine, but aggression/postrounding = nonstarters.
4. Debate is obsessed with ‘tabula rasa’ nonsense, which has genuine consequences. Not a fan of frivolous arguments (in any style, from the resolved NIB to riders DAs), and the closer an arg is to morally abhorrent or contrary to debate’s intent (think “flat earth” or other nonsense), the likelier it is I won’t flow it.
5. Won’t vote on any -isms (extremely likely to give an L20). I will not flow args from known hate orgs (ex: the heritage foundation). Will, however, evaluate impact turns, and am willing to vote on things like spark, wipeout, and extinction good (read: as negative util/preserving future value) arguments. Won’t vote on ‘warming good.’ My threshold for responses is lower the worse/edging on morally abhorrent the argument is.
6. AI rule:loud incorrect buzzer.
7. More receptive to independent voters/voting issues over time for a few reasons: a) debaters are reading off docs blindly, not doing research, and thus more prone to saying something problematic, b) ideological gaps are widening and this has implications in speech acts, c) debaters in general should be held accountable for problematic speech.
8. For accessibility stuff: lmk any needed accommodations before the round—I will say that it is probably best to tell me directly bc a lot of debaters’ emails go to my spam, misgendering/being racist/other shenanigans in-round will lead to loss of speaks and/or the ballot even without an argument—my tolerance for homophobia, transphobia, etc. is increasingly low—it’s not that hard to adapt.
9. weigh <3
Lincoln-Douglas
Kritiks
- These rounds can either be amazing or borderline terrible depending on your knowledge of the lit base and engagement with the opposition—don’t just talk past the Aff (or Neg if it’s a K Aff), actually engage with the lit, and know what you’re talking about—good K debate takes reading, determination, and dedication—you cannot sidestep all three of these, pull a K off the wiki, and expect good results
- I can’t always promise I know the intricate details of your specific lit, but I am familiar with a decent variety of lit (most familiar with queer theory and settler colonialism), and you should still explain arguments as if I don’t have base understanding—I’ve voted for arguments ranging from simple critiques of capitalism to psychoanalysis and back again, you do you if you explain it
- I will however admit that I need a lot more explanation in fields like cybernetics and dense criticisms of IR
- I have devoted a lot of focus to queer, trans, and feminist literature—some thoughts you should know: a) these lit bases are indebted to Blackness in terms of resistance strategies inside and outside of debate, b) pls don’t just go for this stuff bc I’m in the back, c) slightly higher threshold if “state bad” is the only link in the 1NC
- Use reasonable judgment for kritiks of discourse—much more than willing to buy links into things like “no, this is absolutely racist, reject it” (i.e., “illegal aliens” on the open borders topic…), but it can feel like policing (“queer” to “kweer” comes to mind), especially against K affs (this applies mostly to word PIKs)
- Non-T Affs are completely fine, just have a relevant ballot story and do ‘something’ (don’t care what that ‘something’ looks like though—very low threshold here)
- On a similar note, creative visions of affirmation are fantastic
- However, presumption is underutilized against K affs (more than just two short analytics)—I find a lot of teams fall short in explaining what the Aff does and especially its impacts—isolating what the Aff endorses, why the ballot is key, etc. are all important—explaining to me what these components are is also meaningful since I take a very “you do you” approach here—examples of what the Aff method looks like in motion can be very useful
- I’ve judged a few K v. K rounds, K aff v. cap K is usually pretty straightforward imo but otherwise, do more weighing and framing work than you otherwise think—“root cause” debates rarely do resolving work that I need, and the two Ks in play are rarely a criticism of the same thing—perms must demonstrate interactions between lit bases, but “no perms in a methods debate” isn’t intuitive until you explain why it’s true—K Affs are still Affs (clash on case pls)
- Not a fan of the “perm double bind”
- While all debates are performances in their own right, unique forms of engagement are highly enjoyable to witness—explain to me what the purpose is
Independent Voters
- I tend to view these as pressing concerns that must override substance, I think debaters are sometimes too quick to throw out "auto-drop" without explaining DTD, but I also think that problematic discourse is terrible; I'm very receptive to things like misgendering being independent voters, less so to things like "this is independent" if it's just a reps turn or something that should be resolved on substance; an example would be the 1NC reading Tuck and Yang, but fumbling hard in CX (I'd rather you make that a turn or use it as sufficient defense)
- Theory arguments (condo, CP legitimacy, etc.) are not independent voters
Framework (Policy v. K)
- Spending time on “this method is key on this issue” can matter, “just pls engage with the state and read a plan” is less persuasive—I think policy teams need to be willing to bite the bullet on “ToP doesn’t explain everything, prefer particularized methods to answer the complexity of the world” and K teams should be willing to contest case and/or plan focus
- Aff FW v. K: a) not a win condition independently, b) ‘extinction outweighs’ is an overused response, usually links into the K, and avoids clash, c) most ‘procedural fairness’ warrants do not make sense to me on their own—spending more time warranting and impacting the deficit to fairness is highly advisable
- T-FW—a) not great for this if the Aff is affirming through an alternate method to “a plan” (esp philosophy or grassroots), b) good for teams that demonstrate why state engagement is better in terms of movements and solving Aff impacts, or why the rez should be debated, d) fine with 1-off FW strategies that devote most of the 1NC time to answering case, theory of power, doing relevant impact turns, and pushing presumption (depth of clash is great)
Policy
- One of the easier styles for me to judge, fair game for most things from soft-left to agenda politics, will say I prefer topic DAs (esp w/ specific links to the plan) to generic ptx, not wild about tangential extinction impacts (do we really need to read ‘extinction’ on topics like “standardized tests?”)
- Fine w/ specific plans and PICs, just be willing to beat back theory/T, not fantastic for both extremes of the nebel T debate
- Ev quality matters—you don’t get credit for incoherent args (highlights must form complete thoughts/sentences), contest ev quality and do ev weighing
- Can insert re-highlighting if it’s from portions of evidence already read in the round—just be vocal about where you’re inserting
- Zero risk is a thing
- Good impact turns are great, stale impact turns are less so, don’t double-turn yourself, ev quality is crucial on impact turns, you should do work in CX to frame it as a viable strategy
- More internal link weighing pls, contesting probability is great, teams that don’t go for impact and internal link weighing almost always lose to those that do
- I need more competition established in the 1NC, I love good perm debates but 10 "perm do both" analytics with no warrant isn't it
- Judge kick is bad.
- Case debates are great debates, do more solvency/link turns and not just 1 min of impact D after spraying 6 off (2NRs on case are always welcome btw)
- In LD, you should still warrant util/SV in the 1AC—the 1NC should always go for an NC if this isn’t the case
- Idk if “you get ptx” or “we want ptx” makes an interp genuinely viable, other than that, better for T interps that make a clear model of debate and go for topic lit/lit controversy; 2AR must extend case if the 2NR only went for T, I probably do not want to hear “X school’s AC is the TVA”
- I'm not very moved by "norms" or "it's early in the topic" for T, even an Aff that is popular is not immune to T as a germane criticism
- Do more work in the 2NR both to resolve competing interpretations and to impact the T shell
- I probably do not want to judge plan flaw unless the Aff’s plan is written in a way that is meaningfully different from actual implementation
Philosophy
- I studied social and political philosophy for some of undergrad, but it’s been a minute since I’ve been in any kind of ethics class; I’m probably quick to understand analytical ethical philosophy, but haven’t touched continental philosophy in a while, and execution in LD is often dreadful—good philosophy debates are fine, bad ones hurt my head—weighing justifications or doing hijacks is probably more useful than preclusion claims with no warrant or “extinction always first”
- LDers tend to be ineffective in explaining their theory of ethical good, explain the application of Kantian ethics rather than just “that’s coercive so you can’t do it”—I’ll listen to things like “taxation always bad” if that’s the logical conclusion of your FW, but that rarely seems to be the case
- Won’t hack for epistemic/ethical modesty but I also won’t disregard high risk of extinction purely bc there’s clash at the framing level
- Not huge on phil ACs that also read a util advantage or phil ACs/NCs that get super tricky
- Unlikely to vote on FWs I can’t explain back to you or that are extremely circular to the point of uselessness—performativity and constitutivism warrants are big culprits here
- I do not want to hear source Kant. If other cards are outdated and constantly need bracketing for things like gendered language, perhaps you should revise the AC/NC
- TJFs: a) I understand the necessity for them in circuit contexts, though they usually don’t make sense unless util is in play, b) most TJFs are poorly warranted, explain why analytics or carded offense are good/bad, c) phil ed loss? maybe? idk that’s for you to decide
- Impact-justified frameworks are probably bad
- AFC/ACC = :(
Traditional LD
- I started trad, been in the loop here for a while, I only vote off the flow (not “who spoke better”)—if you only have lay experience, just be aware that I understand the topic, debate, and a variety of argument styles—this doesn’t mean I want to hear poorly conceived args or cheap shots. Unless definitions of words matter for the rez at hand (aka topicality), I would prefer that you just shelve that and debate substance.
- I probably do not want to hear cases that read like an essay
- Yes, I disclose. Will try to be as thorough as possible. If you have questions about my decision-making process, you should ask in-person if possible.
- Evidence comparison, weighing, and analysis are crucial—regardless of your experience, you need to tell me how to vote, what matters most—it’s not enough to say “x matters,” tell me why x matters more than y; don’t just restate things, explain why it’s true; grandstanding is unhelpful
- Not a fan of “value is morality, criterion is util, contention one” with zero explanation of either (threshold for response is zero), FWs that are just “upholding my side of the rez” are even worse
- On that same note, unless there is clash at the FW level (i.e., Kant v. Util), I don’t mind if FW is conceded—two people can agree on a metric for impacts but disagree on what action is more ethically justified under said metric—never be afraid to just move on if there’s no clash at the FW level (I guarantee I will probably be happier)
- Trad v. circuit: it’s a learning moment, I think circuit teams should be willing to explain whatever they’re reading (esp in CX—if you’re a jerk in CX and won’t explain your args, the odds are good that you will lose speaker points and possibly THE ROUND) and simplifying is good (1-off, case for Ks and 2-3 off w/ no procedurals for policy = good), won’t penalize trad debaters for not understanding circuit norms like disclosure, won’t penalize circuit debaters for playing the game (ex: if it’s late prelims/bubbles/elims and you need to go 5-off, I’m more sympathetic than in early prelims)
- Please say the name of the card before its content (i.e., “Jones 22: card content”), do not paraphrase evidence (that’s bad), made up evidence is an auto-L, brackets to inflate strength of warrant are almost definitely an auto-L
- Shenanigans like “they had no value/criterion” if they conceded FW or did something like reading a K will not make me happy (pls don’t mansplain LD to me…)
- Tell me how I should rectify abuse if you’re trying to call your opp out for being abusive—what is abusive? Do I drop the argument? Them? Why do I care that they were abusive?
- Follow norms on in-round safety—even traditional debaters should do things like respecting pronouns, this can and will cost ballots (debaters are starting to get overtly racist and antiqueer in rounds again, will penalize this even if your opponent doesn’t make an argument about it)
- No set perspective on the resolution (I don’t think the Aff has a burden to defend the topic as it is), so debaters’ dismissal of arguments isn’t a reason to reject it on my flow—if you think the Aff should debate the topic, for example, you must argue that they should debate the topic—read topicality and not an NC that doesn’t engage with a non-T aff
- Yes, I am fine with CPs, but most “counterplans” read in lay debate don’t make sense to me—pls endorse a singular, counter-course of action with actual evidence that explains why the CP solves the Aff (aka a solvency advocate), not an abstract counter-claim—I am unlikely to vote on CPs that I don’t understand
Theory
- Have judged a reasonable amount of these, I think these rounds are highly dependent on execution and need more weighing between standards, more framing, and more i/l weighing to fairness/education—the less resolvability work done by debaters, the more I probably look to substance and/or presumption; fairness might be an impact but deficits to fairness are rarely weighed (ex: how do I reconcile PICs stealing Aff offense AND the need for Neg flex)
- Most 1NCs/1ARs in policy rounds involve theory, fine here, make the abuse story and model of debate clearer earlier in the debate (how many condo good? why does dispo solve? what’s allowed?), if I can’t draw the line between speeches, unlikely to vote on it (this means a 10 second condo arg that gets made into a 3 min 2AR)
- Beating back paradigm issues can make theory easy to resolve; generally good for DTA + reasonability, can be persuaded fairness and education are not voters
- I am not the ideal judge for friv/abstract theory, clear and specific interps are always easier for me to resolve; will not eval stuff about your opponent's appearance or similar, use common sense here pls
- Combo shells could be arbitrary, could also be true if a certain combination of arguments uniquely skews strategizing, decide this for me
- I prefer that you do extend paradigm issues/voters on theory even if uncontested, but that you not be annoying abt it—treat it like a DA or something and this should hopefully make what I mean more obvious
- Not a fan of theory to shut out tough convos—this makes debate violent and reinforces systems of oppression
- I’m not a huge fan of “must include links to circuit debater on your wiki” or the like
- Reading more than 2 shells on either side will usually lead me to question your strategic decisions
- Won’t flow new 2AR theory arguments unless the 2NR was super abusive; similarly, paradigm issues, etc. need to be in the 1AR
- Not entirely against voting on RVIs, not great for throwing substance away and going for 6 min of the RVI when you could’ve won substance either
- Misdisclosure is really difficult for me to evaluate—I need: a) slow down. tell me exactly what was asked for and what was given—I will evaluate screenshots from both ends, b) standards that tie into this difference (e.g., prep skew), c) why it’s DTD (one analytic seems more like DTA, entirely different adv/plan is reasonably DTD)
Disclosure
- I do think that, on balance, disclosure has improved CX and LD, but reading disclosure theory seems like a mandate for equality when equity is the concern—as of late, I think that the reading of disclosure is often violent and am much more receptive to the idea that many groups have good reasons not to disclose—policy v. policy seems ripe for disclosure theory, but reading it against a K aff is not a good look
- Performances and similar materials do not need to be disclosed (you do you)
- Don't read disclosure at locals unless you're like both going hard circuit-style (even then, figure this stuff out yourselves pls)
- New Affs Bad: not my favorite argument, but I understand that it’s necessary as a procedural/possible 2NR out—go for better warrants over more, poorly explained standards, and skip “can’t engage with the Aff” if you put a lot of answers on case (relatively low threshold for identity-based responses here, just a heads up); the joke "I prepped for "it's new"" was maybe funny once in like 2019
Tricks
- Not the best judge for truth-testing as a ROB, okay-ish for things like ethical paradoxes and some epistemic paradoxes (one-card “skep Ks” are awful, gettier problems are kinda cool and not read enough), not big on strategies designed to avoid clash—I really dislike arguments that say “disregard the flow” that are tricky in nature
- Warrants are key, if I can't explain it back to you based on what was said in-round, it doesn't get the ballot
- Paradoxes can be cool but you have to devote more time to them if you want them to take out an entire framework
- I am not the right judge for crazy logic paradoxes, there just isn't enough time for me to flow these or understand an equation in the context of an LD round
- Slews of analytics are hard for me to flow, slow down if the 1AC/1NC is loaded
- I evaluate all speeches in a given round
Evidence Ethics (all events)
- I'll eval both theory and ev ethics challenges, the latter stops the round and winner gets a W, loser gets lowest speaks I can give
- If it's an ev ethics challenge, I'll allow both teams to make a written defense of their practice and we go from there
- For clipping: I tend to not flow off the doc—this means I need a recording and definitive proof (beyond just a line or so)
Misc Stuff
- Defaults: Comparative Worlds, Epistemic Confidence – I have no defaults on theory (make arguments)
- Permissibility and presumption both negate at face value, though presumption flips Aff if the Neg reads an advocacy – it is MUCH easier to convince me that presumption affirms than permissibility
- I don’t care if you sit or stand—just be clear
CONFLICTS:
All entries – Sequoyah HS (GA), Perry HS (AZ), Ivy Bridge Academy (GA), Dean Rusk MS (GA)
I am a third year LD Debater. Props to you for reading paradigms; too few people do that. Mention that you read this and get free cookie points.
PREFERENCES:
I'm a pretty informal judge. I could care less if you sit or stand; whatever you feel comfortable with. Do not spread; I won't be able to keep up, and will miss your arguments. Speaking quickly is fine but for the love of god please do not spread. If you're getting too hard to hear I will say "Clear" for you. If you make me laugh in round (for a reason other than a really bad point) I will give you bonus speaks. I will keep time but please keep your own as well. I am also a very traditional judge; normal cases work best with me.
LD JUDGING:
This is the form of debate I'm most familiar with. I don't flow cross but will keep in mind any refutations made during it as long as they are brought back up in round. I prefer contention level debate, though framework is important, and most of the time will end up voting off of impacts. So I'm pretty much the average LD judge but with enough experience to know if an argument is bad or not, and if your case makes sense. Assume I'm an idiot when explaining your case so I understand it.
PF JUDGING:
Literally just impacts. I know the least about this format so please don't get too crazy! Just explain what you're saying very well and why that should make you win. Wear a fedora if you're cool
BQ JUDGING:
I am a second year parent Judge so fairly new.
I prefer no spreading, at a pace that all can follow. I am very much a more traditional LD judge.
Please give me your voters !! Why you should win. What makes your framework better than your opponents.
No progressive debate ie, Counterplans, K, Theory, DA's, etc. ( not qualified )
I am a former LD debater; I am very familiar with progressive debate. I will vote off of a few things, but I want to see fluid, technical debate. I will flow throughout rounds and keep a running tab of arguments that are dropped, but it won't cause you to lose the round unless there is no clash on heavily emphasized contentions. I value clash a lot; I want to see in-depth arguments as to why evidence doesn't make sense, general claims won't work. I am comfortable with any case type. Run whatever you'd like; again, tech always wins. I like to see in-depth tech debate; impact calc will be weighted heavily. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask.
I'm a third-year parent judge with lots of experience judging LD, though I'm still a traditional judge who will not evaluate the extremely technical side of LD debate.
The framework debate is most important, and you should have a value and value criterion. These things should be clearly stated along with your contentions, and I would prefer if you avoided policy jargon (e.g., "fiat," "perm," "pic," etc.) and didn't spread, because I will not be able to follow it.
That all being said, I've become more open to progressive arguments like kritiks and counterplans. There is a caveat to this: your arguments should be clearly explained and presented in a format that is understandable - you should still have a framework even if running a counterplan or other similar argument. Err on the side of extreme caution when reading progressive arguments in front of me.
I always try my best to check my biases at the door, and I will try to evaluate the round using only arguments presented in round.
Experience:
I'm a varsity debater at Marist School. I did policy my first year, so speed isn't an issue. I currently do public forum on the national circuit.
Technicality:
Don't bring up new arguments in final focus. Remember to signpost. I won't count the argument if it was brought up after summary, which includes grand cross. Cross x isn't that important to me, so if an important point is brought up, tell me in your speech. Don't forget to weigh because it makes my decision easier. Make sure to clash in your debate and do analytics. Don't just read a prewritten rebuttal, summary, or final focus. Remember, extending arguments doesn't mean just saying "extend this card". You need to explain how extending it helps your case.
PF: I've probably debated on the topic multiple times, so please don't read me definitions unless they are a "unique" interpretation of the word.
Speaks:
high speaks: clarity, analytics, signposting
low speaks: spreading excessively, rude comments-- I will dock points for any offensive remarks against race, gender, nationality, etc. Cross isn't important to my ballot, but I will dock points if you don't let the other team ask questions.
She/Her
Marist '22 | Northeastern '26
Debated for 5 years on the national circuit
Include me on email chains nahasmaggie@gmail.com
I'd say I'm a fairly typical flow judge. Extend and weigh your arguments clearly. No new arguments in final focus. Make sure you are signposting in your speeches. I'm fine with some speed, but please don't spread. Please don't read me framework unless you actually plan to weigh under that framework. The second speaking team should absolutely be frontlining in rebuttal. That being said, the first speaking team does not automatically gain access to all unfrontlined responses during first summary. I want to see your arguments being extended fully, meaning extend whatever links/internal links/warrants/impacts/frontlines/etc. that you're going for. If you just tell me to extend your *enter last name* card, it will probably mean literally nothing to me, so focus on the actual arguments. I will always prefer cut cards over paraphrasing. I generally think paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good for the activity. Stealing prep is really annoying and so is taking excessive time to produce called cards. If something important happens in cross, tell me about it in a speech, otherwise, it won't be on my flow and probably won't affect my decision.
The reason I love debate is because it is inclusive and educational. If anything happens in the round which goes against these values, I will dock your speaker points.
I'm a pf debater.
Make sure you stay organized throughout the debate. Give me a clear road map and transitions through your speech.
In the final focus, tell me what the debate comes down to (voting issues).
Otherwise, I'm not incredibly picky.
Excited to judge you if you are reading this! Debate is super cool and it is my life, I hope that it is a big part of your life too and this is a learning experience for both you all and me as even people in the position of educators have new things to learn from these debates. Feel free to introduce yourself and talk to me like a person because
joshuasp.debate@gmail.com
---
Recent Affiliations:
Coaching: Ivy Bridge Academy (PF), Thomas Kelly College Prep (Policy)
Debating: Western Kentucky University (2024-present), Georgia State University (2021-2024), Sequoyah High School (2017-2021)
I prefer to be called "jsp" or "Josh" to judge.
---
AI Rule: auto loss.
---
PF:
Frontlining is good, line by line is good, weighing is good, weighing should start by the summary at the latest. Uniqueness and Internal Links matter just as much as the link/impact. If any of these terms are new to you talk to your coach or I before/after the round. Defense isn't sticky it's slippery.
---
Policy:
I adapt to you instead of you adapting to me.
I am 50/50 for framework, flow on paper and don't look at the doc. Just like... make good arguments. Use what you are good at, don't use what you are not.
I need pen time, i flow on paper and by ear, my laptop will likely be closed till the rebuttals, I will yell "clear" or "loud" as much as needed but I would rather not have to and I will just stop if I get tired of saying it - speed will always be fine - clarity though is just as important
Inserting rehighlighting is okay, I will read it during prep, please explain what the recutting means though
I will not vote for arguments that had no warrant/signaling. Such as ur fiat K's that ngl was not even in the block
It must have been in your final speech for me to vote for you on it (including extending case vs T)
I evaluate impact level first usually unless told otherwise (whether its education or nuke war, etc)
My ballot will likely be determined off who i have to do the least work for, i do not usually vote on presumption
Tabula rasa is a conservative debate dogwhistle
Hello! My name is Edward Tsui. I will be your judge for today's round.
Welcome to Speech and Debate! I just want to take the time to praise you for deciding to participate in such an amazing opportunity. This organization has produced some of the best thinkers and communicators known in today's society. A little about my personal life, I am a first-year Political Science Major at The University of Georgia.I am the son of first generational immigrants. My aspirations include attending law school and making a difference for underprivileged children here in the United States. Regarding interests, I love public speaking. I have competed for a little over half of my high school career. Outside of this process, I love the outdoors, and I love building community.
Just to let you know a little about my speaking background, I was a debater and public speaker for Cherokee High Speech and Debate for my Junior and Senior years in high school. During the 2019-2020 season, I was runner-up for the state of Georgia in Original Oratory, and I actively succeeded in Lincoln-Douglas and Congressional debate. Similarly, I qualified for the National tournament by receiving the first bid in my category for that year. Furthermore, I coached Teasley Middle school speech and debate, and I have a TED Talk on failures of the current foster care system. All in all, I know what I am doing in regards to these events. I ask you be patient during the round. I am actively taking notes at all times.
Some Ground Rules for Debaters:
I Do Not Condone "Spreading" During the Round. This is commonly referred to as talking as much as possible in order to compact as much evidence into a debate. This practice is problematic, as I view debaters who spread as foolish. Debaters who spread make it nearly impossible for them to be understood, by myself and their opponent, and I will not grant points nor a win in a round based on "My opponent did not address all of my points, therefore, he or she agrees upon them". The best debaters in the world are not where they are today because they talk fast; it is because of well-developed communication skills along thoroughly developed arguments they can properly explain.
Be Respectful! Speech and Debate is supposed to be a fun event in which speakers from all across are learning how to persuade and communicate effectively. The rounds have speakers from all walks of experience and talent; additionally, topics can get a little heated during rounds. I value professionalism and respect during the round at all times. THIS INCLUDES BEING RESPECTFUL ABOUT POLITICAL VIEWS. I will dock points if necessary.
I Ask You Be Patient during the round. I am actively taking notes at all times.
Some Ground Rules for Speakers:
Do Not Interrupt Other Speakers while they are presenting. Nothing is more distracting and disrespectful. This is an absolute pet-peeve.
Be Respectful! Speech and Debate is supposed to be a fun event in which speakers from all across are learning how to persuade and communicate effectively. The rounds have speakers from all walks of experience and talent; additionally, speech subjects can get a little heated during rounds. I value professionalism and respect during the round at all times. THIS INCLUDES BEING RESPECTFUL ABOUT POLITICAL VIEWS. I will dock points if necessary.
I Ask You Be Patient during the round. I am actively taking notes at all times.
Best of Luck to All Competitors!