natalielbennie@gmail.com--yes e-mail chain, but know I do not follow along with docs during the debate and do not tend to read a ton of evidence afterwards.

Debated at Samford University.

Currently coaching as a graduate student at Wake Forest.

Top level stuff:

• Do what you do best. Please do not try and change your debating to try and win my ballot-- chances are it won't help you out and you'll have less fun. I will listen to any argument and have experience running the gamut of them.
• My default position is as a policymaker and that debate is a game (a very challenging one, often with legitimate real-world applications, but a game nonetheless). That said--if you want me to evaluate the round in any other way, be clear about what my role as a judge is and present a justification for that interpretation, and I will be happy to do so

Specifics:

Framework:

• I am often very compelled by a topical version of the aff.
• Fairness is probably not an impact by itself, *update* but I find myself voting on it more often than I expect to.

Non-traditional affs:

• Go for it
• I don't think non-traditional aff necessarily need to be "topical," but I do think that the resolution ought to play a central role in your decision to run this affirmative.

Disad/Counterplans:

• Go for it
• Specificity is always preferable to generics and will probably be rewarded
• I am willing to no-link a disad
• I am often very compelled by a good overview that includes a thorough turns case analysis.
• Condo is fine and probably good. 3 CP's and a K are probably not. Cheater counterplans are probably cheating-- don't be afraid to take on this debate as the affirmative. I will vote on theory, but if there are other args you're winning, you should go for them instead.

Kritiks:

• Go for it
• Specificity is preferable to generics and will probably be rewarded
• While I may be familiar with your literature base, I will still hold you to a high threshold for explanation. I've seen a lot of k debates devolve into a battle of buzzwords with warranted analysis getting lost in the midst of it (to be fair, this is also true of a lot of policy debates). I will probably reward your ability to explain your own argument.

Tips for speaks:

• Time efficiency— Have the 1ac ready to send before the start time/the 1nc to send asap. Stands should be set up before the round. Inefficient rounds = lower speaks and less decision time, which may either help or hurt you (if that’s a gamble you’re interested in making).
• Assertiveness is not a license for disrespect or hostility.
• say smart things! Be nice!
• Make bold choices— trust your instincts.

Other stuff:

• Be kind. Be conscious of the person you're speaking to and how your tone/language choices/body language could be coming off.
• You are an intelligent and competent human being. Don't be afraid to use your brain and make some common-sense answers to arguments. I think a lot of what we say in debate is silly and could be taken down by a few good attacks, even without cards. Trust yourself to make smart arguments.
• Do not clip cards.
• Have fun! I love this activity and will put in as much effort judging your round as you did preparing for it.

Please be on time for check-in.

Email: Gracenicoleb@gmail.com

She/her

Background

• I did policy debate at Samford for 3 years
• 2x NDT qualifier
• Assistant coach of the SpeakFirst debate team

Top-level thoughts:

I prefer clear, slow speaking over fast, unintelligible speaking. With online debate, clarity is key. A lot of technology leaves failure points where I may miss something. I will be more likely to vote for the team that carefully explains their arguments over a team that provides more evidence but neglects warrants.

I will not vote for death good or warming good.

If I notice you are clearly clipping cards or are engaging in racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. remarks or behavior, I will vote you down. If you want to call out a team that you believe is clipping cards, debaters are innocent until proven guilty. Be prepared to have it recorded or have some other way for me to verify it.

Disclosure: Debaters should disclose. I am fine with disclosure arguments.

Judge kick: I will kick the cp for the neg if no one tells me not to.

Tech > Truth with limits. A dropped argument is assumed to be contingently true unless it is obviously unethical or when I go back and read your evidence, it does not say what you say it does. I will read most of the evidence in round but if you're answering a specific argument/link/internal link with a generic, I won't always accept that without contextualization. If you leave it up to me to resolve an argument, you get what you get.

More specific thoughts:

CP

I default to sufficiency framing. The Cp's viability as a winning argument is essentially a product of how much it resolves the aff's impacts and the magnitude of the NB. Also, if it is not 100% clear on the distinction between the cp and the plan, outline the differences for me. If the CP has no external net benefit-- it must solve better than the aff for some reason.

DA

Be clear on the link level- this means I don't want you to just read cards on why you don't link-- I want an explanation. I will vote for a DA if I think there is a small risk of a link and a significant probability of an impact. I will not vote for a DA if I feel like there is not a significant probability of an impact, even if there is a small risk of a link. There are downsides to every policy-- it's the burden of the neg to prove why their impacts outweigh.

K

You should start with the assumption that I know nothing about your literature base. I will vote for a K if it is specific and interacts with the Aff. I will not vote for generic Ks that are not explained well or lack evidence. Line-by-line is very important for these debates so don't just rely on cards. Unless told specifically otherwise, I assume that life is preferable to death. In order to convince me otherwise, you must prove that a world with no value to life/social death is worse than being biologically dead. My best piece of advice is that if you want me to vote for the K, you must prove how it SOLVES whatever the debate is about. If the K doesn't solve anything, expect an L. I think too often, Ks get away with cheap solvency. My only caveat here is that I am more likely to vote on bad rhetoric Ks/independent voters- these arguments are sometimes very convincing to me.

T

I am not the best person to judge a super in-depth T debate, but I'll do my best. I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could possibly be persuaded to vote another way. I tend to have a high threshold for voting on T so if you are going to go for it, commit to it. T outweighs condo 98% of the time.

Theory

I lean neg on theory. Condo- good and key to neg flex, but it's a debate to be had. For me to vote on generic condo, there needs to be something egregiously abusive going on in the round. My only caveat here is that I am more likely to vote on contra condo. I could be persuaded that going 5+ off with multiple contradictory conditional options is a voting issue for 2AC fairness and education. Any other theory argument I think is categorically a reason to reject the argument and not the team.

Resolution

Please read a plan. Without a plan, often the thesis of the aff gets lost, which is super frustrating. This doesn't mean I won't vote for you, but if you decide to not read a plan just make sure that you thoroughly explain what the aff does.

PF & LD

Do not drop line by line to summarize your arguments. I'm more likely to vote for the team that interacts with the other teams' arguments to accelerate their own. I'm fine with CPs, DAs, plans, etc. if you want to run them. Impact calc is a must and make sure you collapse down to your best arguments in the summary. Don't waste time on insignificant arguments you're not going for. You must explain the warrants of the evidence you read. I will not accept the extension of a tag. Lastly, I hate tricks and will vote you down if that's what you go for.

Kiarra (Key-Era) Pronouns They/Them.

You can add me to the email chain {Kdbroadnax@gmail.com} To help me keep track of email chains. Put your team code and Round number in the subject section please and thank you.

Debated at Samford University (Policy) Currently a Coach with SpeakFirst (PF and LD)

Things to do. (Policy)

1. Signpost, do line-by-line, and use analytics.

2. Speed. Go as fast as you want. If you're unclear, I will look at you very confused because I will not know what to flow.

3. Kicking {Arguments, not other debaters} You should be kicking out of things. I will give .3 on speaks if it's creative. I LOVE a good mic drop moment.

Things to do. (PF)

1. Use analytics. they are super useful and make the debate more interesting

2. Speed. Go as fast as you want. I did do policy but If you're unclear, it will reflect in your speaker points.

3. Collapse down. You are not winning everything and we both know that.

Things to do. (LD)

1. Signpost, do line-by-line, and use analytics.

2. Speed is fine. Just be clear.

3. Put me on the email chain if you make one. If I call for cards at the end of the round and then have to wait for you to set up a chain I will doc speaker points. Please just set it up before the round starts.

4. The affirmative should defend the resolution. Yes, every time.

5. Make me think. Challenge the status quo. Run wacky K's. I won't always vote on it but I will enjoy it.

6. About number 5. If you are going to run a K or something similar. Please put a trigger warning if there is mention of sensitive topics and mention them before the round starts. It's uncommon in this climate but it would greatly be appreciated.

Please, do not do these (Policy):

1. Yelling, Being passionate about your case is super cool, but yelling at me will make me not want to vote for you.

2. Introducing Harmful Partnerships into the Debate space. I get that debate is a stress-inducing activity but your partner is there with you for a reason. You should use them. I am fine with partners interacting during a speech. Ex: Your partner handing you a card or their technology to use to read a card off of, or handing you their flow. But if your partner is spoon-feeding you, your speech.

3. Demanding a Judge Kick. Nope. No. No, thank you. if you want to kick out of something then do so.

Please, do not do these (PF):

1. Excessively call for cards. I get it. Sometimes you need to see cards but calling for 5 cards per speech is a bit much.

2. Being rude during CX. I get sassy sometimes but screaming, not letting debaters answer or name-calling is unnecessary.

3. If you send a link (only a link) when an opponent calls for evidence. I'll doc speaks. If you send ME a link. ill vote you down. There are rules to this activity. You need to have CUT cards.

Please, do not do this ( LD):

1. Don't be a jerk. Not every debater is going to get your K. Chill.

DO NOT at any point compare ANYTHING to slavery, the holocaust, genocide, rape, etc.

I will vote you down.

Yay debate!

Please speak clearly, concisely, and slow enough that I can understand. Supporting your claims with factual evidence is a must. Be prepared on the topic, it is apparent when you are not. Have passion which will sway my vote. Attack the other competitor's claims with reason and evidence. Tell me what arguments you have refuted and why you win the argument. Christina.Cazzola@cobbk12.org

Vestavia Hills '20 UVA '24

email: ryanconn427@gmail.com

There are typos in this sorry

Have email chain set up before the round please. I tried to keep this paradigm relatively short and likely was not specific enough for some of your particularities so please feel free to email me or ask me questions before round. I also recommend you locally record your rounds in case of a disconnection or if I need to review an evidence ethics violation.

Specific to Samford 2022: I do not know hardly anything about this topic so err on the side of over-explaining. I'm a "tech" judge for all intents and purposes, but I'm always down for a lay debate.

General: I view debate as an activity which has very few tangible benefits in the short run i.e. getting a trophy doesn't really do anything for anyone other than boost egos, but I view debate as an activity which serves to benefit us greatly in the long run through developing good research skills and exposure to literary perspectives we otherwise probably never would have heard of in a traditional educational setting. Debate is an expressive activity, so use whatever language you want so long as it isn't exclusionary or problematic. I do not care if you sit or stand for speeches and cross.

I am not tab. There are some arguments which are just anti-educational with zero real world application as well as arguments which are exclusionary. These types of arguments most frequently take the form of tricks, but can also manifest themselves in other ways. I've found the recent LD trend of trying to cheese your opponent with blips, bracketed a priori, etc. to be antithetical to fun and a massive waste of the judges and opposing debater's time. I will vote for these arguments if your opponent drops it or you somehow impact it out to be a huge voting issue, but don't expect to get high speaks if you go for one of these arguments. There are also some arguments I don't understand very well which you can read more about below.

Defaults/Preferences:

- Tech over truth to an extent. Am not willing to vote on an argument without a claim, warrant, or impact.

- Presumption flips neg until they read an alternate advocacy. Permissibility is not a voting issue unless one debater tells me it flips a certain way. Both of these defaults are thrown out the window as soon as one debater makes arguments about how they should operate.

- You must instruct me on what/how to judge kick. Not going to kick anything a debater doesn't tell me I can/should.

- Need to justify fairness or education

- Shells>Paragraph Theory

- Default to Comparative Worlds

- Calc indicts aren't tricks

-Good analysis>perfect evidence******(If you read an all analytic Phil NC with zero cited authors I will not be happy)

-I will evaluate skep arguments, but since skep itself has no advocacy, I will not vote for it alone. You must pair it with another reason to why your position is good.

-Strongly dislike arguments which auto affirm or negate every time. SSD does not solve. Please don't waste your time on those. I also will not evaluate arguments which tell me to evaluate part of the round before it is over. No❤️, I will not evaluate your spec shell after the 2nr.

-I believe disclosure is a good norm for a variety of reasons. I know some schools do not allow their students to disclose so obviously that is an exception, but please please please disclose otherwise the round is probably over for you as soon as your opponent reads a disclosure shell.

-I generally don't like to hear ad hominem arguments about your opponents out of round lifestyle choices. I'm down to listen to a couple out of round links if they actually relate to the debate space, but I'm almost certainly not gonna drop your opponent because they said something dumb in a Facebook group.

Tldr on my comfort in evaluating certain arguments:

1. Larp

2. T/Theory

3. K (identity)

4. Phil

4. K (pomo)

5. Performance

5. Tricks

Aff: Not too much to say here. I feel like my expectations for an aff case are the same as most other judges. Please have some sort of plan because I'm sure how a planless aff functions much less how to evaluate it. I prefer topical affs as they are easier to interact with in round and evaluate after the round. If you do decide to run a non-t aff, you need to be able to show me the out of round impacts which warrant you running such a case and how there is no possible TVA.

LARP: I enjoy good LARP debates. The biggest issues I have with LARPers though is terrible link chains and an overall absence of weighing. If your links suck and your opponent nails you for it, you are more likely than not in deep trouble for the round. For counter plans, I am generally good with 2 conditional counter plans, although if someone were to do a really good job running a condo bad shell I can be persuaded otherwise. I prefer if your counter plans are either conditional or unconditional as I find dispositional to be kind of messy where debaters can just pick some ridiculous condition for when they can't kick it, and condo is just a generally better strategy in my opinion. You do you though. If you are LARP against K or Phil, make sure to explain to me the merits of policy making and the out of round impacts associated with it. Also, if you are against a non LARP strategy then prove to me why comparative worlds is the best model for debate.

T/Theory: I love theory which promotes a more fair and accessible debate space. I detest frivolous theory. I do believe fairness is a voter but I am more persuaded by educational arguments so explain to me how your opponents breach of fairness leads to a less educational debate. I am ok with short underviews, but long ass 15 point underviews are just so boring and not fun so please don't. I also will not evaluate any argument which tells me to evaluate the debate or part of the debate after *insert speech here*. Debate rounds are as long as they are for a reason and I am unpersuaded by arguments which tell me to stop judging for a portion of the round so just save your time and run a more productive argument. A lot of rounds devolve into Theory vs. Theory so if that happens the easiest way to win is to give me an easy path to evaluating the round. Write my ballot for me.

K: This is an area where I am probably not as strong as a lot of other judges. PLESE GIVE ME GOOD OVERVIEWS. I really enjoy watching good K debaters and I think a lot of the literature read in these arguments is incredibly important. I appreciate identity K's where you can link your performance of the K to out of round impacts. I do not like K's which are just some dude's random ass incoherent Pomo theory which you read to confuse the hell out of your opponent. You will more than likely also confuse the hell out of me and I will have trouble evaluating your arguments in relation to it. If you run K's, you need to state explicitly what you defend and repeat what you defend throughout the round. If you go for pre fiat offense you need to explain to me why that is more important than debating the world of the aff. Make you have good alts otherwise I will be easily persuaded by "vague alts bad" arguments. Ultimately, if you decide to run a K make sure you explain it very well to me. If you are an experienced K debater who has seriously interacted with the literature and thesis of your author then it shouldn't be an issue, but I am not the judge to run some new hot K you just got from the wiki in front of.

Phil/Tricks- Such a polarizing area. I like cool Phil arguments which are a) coherent and b) interact well your opponents case and has actual relevance to the topic. Some Phil arguments are just indescribably bad and this is the area where my "not being tab" is likely to come out. At the end of the day, you know if an argument is substantive or not. If it has decent warrants and you provide me a clear path to the ballot, then I'm here for it. If not, you'll probably leave round pretty upset at my decision. Make sure you cite authors rather than having a 100% analytic case with a ton of skep and permissibility triggers. You need to be able to win truth testing and explain well how you case falsifies the resolution.

Tricks... Here is the deal with tricks. There is a fine line between sneaky fun arguments which still have warrants and straight up BS. If your strategy is solely to blitz your opponent with 30 one line blips and then collapse on one when they inevitably drop something, I really am not interested. It's hard for me to give specific examples but you know should know the difference. I will not vote on the resolved a priori.

Performance- Area I have the least experience with. If you are a performance debater, my advice is to just go for it. I will be highly entertained which will likely mean high speaks, and if you are able to impact out the performance of the debate to some huge out of round impact I definitely see myself voting for you. Hard for me to say what I am looking for because I've had such little exposure to these types or arguments, but if you have a well written and composed performance case I'd love to hear it.

Miscellaneous:

Speaks- I will try to be very fair when awarding speaks. I hate it when judges give trash speaks for no apparent reason which can screw people over if there is a -2 screw. I also hate when judges give out 30s because someone asked or they were buddies with the judge. I will award a 30 if you change the way I think about debate in a positive way. I will award a 25 if you do something inconceivably bad. I will try to average around a 28.5 or there about with debaters I deem worthy of breaking averaging around a 29. I do augment my speaks slightly based on what win bracket you are in.

Update: I believe I have averaged around a 28.7 at octos bid tournaments so far. Do with that what you will

Evidence Ethics- I loathe people who miscut or misrepresent evidence. In the case you think your opponent is cheating, you need to make a formal challenge. Say "I am challenging the ethicality of "insert card/s here". If your opponent accuses you of cheating in a speech, after the speech, ask them to make a formal challenge. If they decline, the round goes on as usual. In the event of a challenge, I will stop the round and review the evidence. I will ask the challenger to show what they think is in violation. I alone will decide who wins the challenge. The winner of the challenge gets the ballot and whatever speaks I would have given them otherwise, maybe slightly higher. The loser gets L20. If I see you are running miscut evidence and your opponent doesn't call you out on it, I will evaluate the round normally but tank your speaks.

Postround: I will always disclose. Most of my feedback will be oral so I can get a decision in faster. If you act like a tool after my decision and post round me then I guess I'll be forced to make fun of you and email your coach. I promise I make every decision in good faith.

Sawyer Emerson (he/him) – seemerson19@gmail.com

TLDR: Minimal Topic Knowledge, Topical Action Good, Non-Contradictory Condo Good, Disclosure Good

I am a first-year out debater from Samford University. I qualified to the NDT all four years that I debated in college. I am currently working in Machine Learning/Artificial Intelligence Software Development in Huntsville, AL.

Since graduating, I have done zero topic research, and I have zero topic knowledge. As of the season opener, I didn't even know the resolution until Friday aside from personhood. In-depth topic-related arguments are going to need some background for me, and topic-related acronyms are not preferable. To an extent, this will remain consistent throughout the season. I have no plans of being deep in the topic at any point in the near future. 

Below I have some major points of my takes on debate, they will not change.

1. The affirmative must affirm the topic - how you want to do that is up to you but be prepared to defend your aff through the topic. Being "in the direction of the topic" is not sufficient. 

2. The pairings are binding as is on Tab. If the first speech is not from the school assigned affirmative, I will auto-vote for the negative.

3. Condo is good - contradictory and unlimited condo is not. Perf con is not condo and is definitely bad

4. I will vote negative on presumption for solvency or internal link takeouts. I think there is a possibility of 0% risk of a DA or an Advantage. I would definitely vote for presumption against an AI aff that totally mischaracterizes AI.

A couple of other notes you may find useful: 

1. I went for separate sheet impact turns frequently. I think these debates are really fun when executed, not so fun when disorganized or mishandled.
2. Debaters are too hesitant to litter pages with analytics. 
3. I default to consequentialism and utilitarianism, but the tech could lead me to use a different standard. I will not reject util if you don't provide an alternative. Reading 10 util is evil/bad cards is not an alternative weighing mechanism. 
4. Disclosure in debate of broken arguments is good. Using the wiki is good. I will vote on disclosure theory in these instances. Sending analytics is nice, but in no way required. 
5. If your cap k is anything other than How the World Works by Bo Burnham on repeat for every speech, I probably don't want to hear it

Ryan Galloway

rwlcgalloway@gmail.com

Broad Strokes: I have voted for and against just about every kind of argument in the activity. While my background and research interests are primarily in the policy side of the equation, I have frequently been convinced to vote for critical arguments. I love debate and am happy to be judging you. Debate requires a lot of work and effort on your part, and I plan on returning the favor by working hard to reward your effort in the debate.

Framework: The most important thing I could say about debating this issue, or virtually any other issue, is to listen carefully to what the other team says and to answer it specifically. I find that teams on both sides of the equation become block dependent and fail to answer the nuance of what the other team says. Before last year’s NDT, I thought I was a good judge for the negative, but at the NDT I voted affirmative twice in framework debates. I would recommend more line-by-line from both sides, and less overview dependent arguments. In many framework debates I've judged, the AFF tends to overwhelm the NEG with so many arguments that the NEG can't keep up. I often encourage the NEG to go for other arguments in those situations, even if they are less scripted and rely more on analytic arguments.

Topicality: I tend to be a good judge for contextualized definitions from either side. My ideal topicality debate would be one more about what the word means in context than arbitrary definitions from both sides with appeals to limits and ground. I am more amenable to appeals to reasonable interpretations than most judges. I dislike de-contextualized interpretations that create a meaning that is not in context of the literature or field.

Kritiks generally: Here's where I think I fall on various kritikal strands:

Very good for identity kritiks, very, very bad for high theory kritiks, pretty good for IR kritiks, goodish for nuclear weapons Kritiks, pretty bad for ad hominems disguised as kritiks, do not believe you can cross-x the judge. Unlikely to believe that one theory of power or psychological drive affects everyone in every situation. Do not think the alt or even having an alt is as important as other judges if you prove the ideological or discursive justifications of the affirmative make the world worse. Do not think that there needs to be an alternative to justify permutations to the ideology inherent in the criticism. Kind of bad for tiny risks of extinction mean I should ignore all standards of morality. Think all philosophical endeavors should be geared toward helping real people in their everyday lives. Better for discourse kritiks than most judges. As a vegetarian, I have found myself more sensitive to impacts on non-humans than many.

Identity k's: history shows I'm very good for them. Not as familiar with all the authors, so you need to guide me a bit. Some familiarity with lit on Afro-pess and Afro-futurism. Not good for the logic that suggests “if you link you lose” is somehow a bad standard of evaluation for k’s.

High Theory K's: you should honestly strike me if your primary strategy is to read generic theory cards referencing a dead French or German philosopher and somehow think they apply to nuclear weapons policy in 2024. I have read a fair amount of post-modern authors, who I generally find to be dull, arrogant, incoherent, usually incorrect, and pragmatically unhelpful. I will not apply your general theory of power to specifically link turning a highly nuanced affirmative case .I feel strongly that a lot of what is happening in these high-theory debates is intellectual bankruptcy and am willing to say the emperor has no clothes. I also think I have a higher standard for evidentiary quality in these debates than most.

IR K's: I'll certainly listen to a security K, a fem IR K, Gender kritiks, Complexity Kritiks, Kritiks of realism, etc. Might need to do a little work applying them specifically to the AFF--but I'm pretty open. I think the lit is deep, credible, and important.

Nuke Weapons K's: As long as the K is an actual indictment of nuclear weapons reductions or disarmament, I'm very down. I will caution you that I think most of the cards I've read talking about "nuclear weapons discourse" are in the context of those who discuss building up nuclear weapons and justifying nuclear deterrence, and are not about reductions and disarmament policies.

Clash debates: I find them hard to judge for both sides. I think if each team would line up what they are arguing the debate is about it would be helpful. Am I evaluating the consequences of FIAT'd action? I am evaluating the AFF as a demand for state action? Am I evaluating the educational benefits of a model of a debate? Am I judging the AFF as an artifact of scholarship?

For non-traditional frameworks, having a method or metric to evaluate what the debate is about would be helpful. How do I assess what is good scholarship? What are the benefits of endorsing a particular model of debate?

I've been told I am a k hack. Perhaps. I have been accused of being erratic in clash debates, wracked with guilt, and apply an offense/defense paradigm where it is inappropriate. It is possible that all of these criticisms may be true or false to some extent. I try and judge the debate I’m watching without a pre-prepared standard of evaluation.

Teams that directly engage the argument of the other team and not use generic framing issues tend to do better in front of me. Engage the scholarship directly, even if you don't have cards. Be willing to talk about how your affirmative operates in the framework established by the other team. Be responsive and think on your feet. Surprisingly good for pragmatism and incrementalism arguments. If the k answer fell out of flavor in the mid to late nineties, I probably really like the argument. I am completely uninterested in proving my kritik credentials or proving that I am down with whomever is the new hot theorist making the coffee shop rounds.

Disads and risk: Framing arguments on risk are very important to me. I flow them and will try to evaluate the debate on the terms that you set up. I try to not have a pre-planned position on how to evaluate these arguments. As with most arguments, less overview and more line-by-line is better. I like when teams use their evidence, even if it is not specific, to make link arguments specific to the affirmative. I view evidence as part of the tool-kit that you have, and the specific arguments you make about your evidence are very important to me. Evidence alone is not an argument. The use of evidence to make an argument is a fundamental component of debate.

Counterplans: I enjoy nuanced counterplan debates made specific to the plan/counterplan in the debate. I dislike littering the flow with permutations and generic theory arguments. I like smart counterplans that solve the internal link of the affirmative. I like theory debates where either team responds to what is happening in the debate they are engaged in, as opposed to abstractions. I lean pretty heavily for the neg on conditionality.

Theory: I'm much better for "if they get 'x' we get 'y' then they absolutely should not get 'x' under any circumstances.”I like strategic concessions on theory to justify arguments elsewhere on the flow. Standard theory blocks are stale and uninteresting, but if you've got an innovative theory or spin especially based on a concession of their theory, I'd be happy to listen. Standards of logic and whether something truly tests the affirmative plan or method are more persuasive to me than many others. Kind of not good for appeals to time skews and hypothetical strategy skews that are likely non-existent.

Novice Debate: I love novice debate and am so happy to be judging you. Novice is my favorite division to judge. I tend to reward novices who make smart arguments using their own logic to attack the other teams’ arguments. I tend to also reward specific line by line debating, so answer what the other team has to say specifically. Feel free to ask me lots of questions at the end of the debate about style, arguments, the decision, etc.

I have eased off some of my prior criticisms of the way novice is coached, but I will still tend to reward substantive arguments as opposed to arguments I view as cheap shots. I enjoy when novices are taught skills that will benefit them throughout their debate careers, instead of those designed to trick another novice with an esoteric and widely rejected theory they just haven’t heard yet.

Ethics challenges: I strongly believe that you should email your opponent or your coaches if you find a problem with their evidence. I think most mistakes are accidental. I have personally emailed coaches who have incorrectly cited a card and found the mistake to be accidental--cutting a lot of cards with multiple windows open and accidentally putting the wrong cite on a card, etc. I think we have to have a certain measure of trust and respect to make the activity happen.

Ethics challenges are happening way too often and are becoming trivialized. If you worry that my standard for trivial is arbitrary, non-trivial suggests you have contacted your opponents, that you are 100% sure you are factually correct, and you can illustrate intent on your opponents’ parts. I believe accusing someone of being unethical is incredibly serious and the standards should be very high.

Stylistic issues:

1. I prefer if you number your arguments.
2. Arguments should be clear in the 1ac/1nc. I dislike the idea that the other team should have to read your evidence to figure out the scope of the argument. The argument should be clear upon its initial presentation.
3. I prefer clear labels to arguments--no link, non-unique, turn, etc.
4. I prefer labels to off-case positions as they happen in the debate: The Politics disad, The TNW's PIC, the Security Kritik, etc. instead of just launching into a five plank counterplan text and leaving me to figure out what the thesis of the argument is.
5. I prefer specific line by line debating to doing most of the work in the overview.
6. I don't read speech docs as the debate goes on and I flow what you say, not what's in the doc.
7. I am very concerned about how stylistic and demeanor norms in the activity marginalize non-cis-dude debaters. Please don't cut off, mansplain to, talk over, berate, or not listen to non-cis-dude debaters. It is shocking to me how much this still goes on.
8. I try to judge the debate, and not the quality of the speech docs after the debate is over. I strongly disagree with judges who read all the cards and decide the debate from that.
9. I seem to be particularly sensitive to aggression in cross-x and cutting someone else off while they are trying to ask or answer a question. I think people should be quiet more and listen to the other side. I also don’t like cross-x filibustering. I don’t think cross-x should be used to “clown” or belittle your opponent. I realize I’m probably saying I believe in the opposite of everything you’ve learned about cross-x, but it’s how I feel. The best cross-x’s set up a trap that isn’t revealed until later in the debate.
10. I still believe in a place called Hope.

Samford '25

Pronouns he/him

I am a current debater at Samford University where I have qualified twice to the NDT. I competed in debate for 4 years at Rockdale County High School where I won the NAUDL round robin. My entire career I have read almost exclusively policy arguments. For those who care I have been a 2A for 95% percent of my debate career.

Please do not send speech docs as a google doc or PDF (Unless format is important to your speech and changing the format will disrupt the message) if you do your speaks are capped at 28.3

Yes, add me to the email chain aarongilldebate@gmail.com

Tech > Truth and its not even close.

PF and LD debaters might find the first paragraph useful but there is a section for y'all at the bottom!

In deciding rounds often times I find myself to be one of the first judges in as I don't tend to read a lot of evidence. I find that some judges reconstruct the debate through the cards read instead of the actual debating and contextualization done in round and as a result teams win based on quality of evidence not on who actually did the best debating. For this reason, I don't like to read cards unless I find teams having two interpretations of the same idea or inserting a new highlighting of their opponents cards. If you think a piece of evidence should be integral to my decision and is the upmost important that I read it post-round flag in your speech "Aaron you should read this card!"

The Politics disad has to be my favorite debate to have and to judge although many find the link chain to be a little silly. However, this doesn't mean go crazy with a random agenda disad because I also do find myself assigning close to zero and even zero risk of a disad. Specific links to an aff are important but that doesn't mean your generic topic links don't matter either. For aff teams thumpers are the best way to beat generic topic links to disads especially if they post-date the negative's uniqueness evidence.

I lean heavily neg on CP theory and am almost in the realm of giving the negative infinite conditionality. I believe that is the burden of the neg to prove the aff is a bad idea or solves best and thus I think conditionality is the best method for the negative to be able to achieve this. This does not mean you can't go for condo bad in front of me but rather that it probably shouldn't be your A strat and that there should probably be specific in round abuse proven. The more condo the negative reads the more convincing condo bad becomes especially in a world where the negative is implemented 4+ conditional worlds. I feel for the aff for judge kick and having to defend two worlds but I think most times judge kick doesn't matter as the net benefit doesn't work absent a counterplan due to low risk and getting outweighed by the affirmative. There is definitely a debate to be had though on whether or not the neg gets judge kick. Generally I think process/states/agent CPs are all good doesn't mean the theory debate isn't there to be had higher threshold to reject the team versus reject the arg. I have yet to see another method of weighing CP and net benefit outside of sufficiency framing that makes any sense but if you have an alternative I'm happy to hear it and implement it if you win it.

I've began to enjoy kritikal debates more and more as I've become more entrenched in debate through my college career. That does not mean that I think I am a good judge for the K. My depth in kritik literature is quite shallow and it is to the negative's advantage to over-explain their kritik if I am in the back of your round because if I just don't understand what you are kritiking and how the alternative solves that it is unlikely I am to vote on your kritik. I think specific links to the aff are important and if you can point to specific affirmative evidence to prove you link that puts you in a good position for winning your link. In most cases I will weigh the affirmative in some method against the aff unless the negative is just outright winning that the kritik must be a prior-question to the aff. Going for kritiks without the alt I'm hesitant to vote on because without a method of solving how are the links not just FYIs? If you can answer that question feel free to go for the kritik without an alternative.

Topicality is underutilized against policy teams and I think negative teams get scared to go for 5 minutes of just aff is egregiously untopical. I think as a result of this some affs are objectively not resolutional and a few I can point to in recent history where the neg should 100% of the time go for topicality but didn't were Westminster's Treason aff and probably any courts affs on CJR. Standards are a must and I think fairness is an impact. What makes for a good interpretation is probably up for debate and should be well debated by both sides.

FW: Please read a plan. I will vote for a planless aff if well impacted out why it is important that your aff comes before fairness and why the resolution doesn't allow for the discussion that you aff asks for. I think switch side debate solves a lot of offense the K times try to win on T.

PF and LD Debaters

Don't worry about adapting to me I will adapt to you! Just do what you do best and I will follow what you are doing. For LD debaters who do high theory and philosophy you should read the section for Kritiks from my policy paradigm.

Alyssa Gregory (alyssa.g.gregory@gmail.com yes put me on the email chain).

I was on the Policy Debate Team at Samford University where I qualified for the national debate tournament twice. All of my debate experience has been in policy but I still feel like I have a good understanding of LD and PF.

A brief overview: I lean towards aff on theory, tech over truth, and love impact calc. The better line by line the better speaker points. Debaters have an incentive to lie so you need evidence to support your claims.

Other thoughts:

Tech v. Truth: I definitely lean more toward tech. There are a lot of true arguments in debate (probably on both sides) so if an arg is dropped and you point it out, it will be a true argument for me. However, if your opponent runs a really out there argument and you effectively argue against it I'll take this into consideration.

Speed: Go the fastest you can while being clear. As a debater, I've always hated when judges said clear so I'll probably only say it to you if you're excessively unclear. If I look confused that's a sign you need to change.

Kicking Arguments: Unless it’s a theory arg, you should be formally kicking out of things. I will kick a cp for the negative automatically if they respond to “status of the cp” in cx with “status quo is always an option” unless the aff tells me not to. Otherwise, I won’t kick anything unless explicitly told to by the negative.

This is true for all args except args that have no business in debate (see impact turns below)

Non-topical affs: I believe debate is a fun game students do for fun on the weekend. Like any game, debate has binding rules I will hold you to. You need to either affirm or negate the year's topic.

Traditional v. Progressive: I lean progressive. I have run and hit a few K's. The more far-fetched the K the less likely I will vote for you. I've also been in and witnessed some clash debates where people were overly rude to their opponents. If I witness you taunting, bullying, or acting in an excessively rude manner I will severely dock your speaker points. With all arguments, but especially Ks it is necessary to explain in simple terms what you are advocating for.

T: I'm very comfortable with these args. If you do go for T make sure you have a definition of an exact word from the resolution. You also need evidence to support this claim and more evidence to show the aff does not fall under your interpretation. And explain standards (especially if there is a counter interp) - If you don't tell me why to prefer your interp, I probably will give aff more wiggle room on being T. Standards need to have an impact. Why should I care about limiting the resolution? Also, make sure you present a Topical Version of the aff.

Theory More Broadly: Condo is a reason to reject the team or reject the arg, and everything else is just reject the arg. Debate is a game and theory arguments tell the judge when someone has broken a rule. I lean pretty far negative on theory like PICs, Conditional, etc. However, I find 3 Cps to be excessive (2 is fine). The more condo you have, the more persuasive the reject the team arg becomes and the more wiggle room I will give the aff. I think conditional planks are sketchy and unfair to the aff.

K: You cannot win a K without an alternative and need to have a solvency advocate.

CP: I love a good counterplan that is textually and functionally competitive with the plan, a credible solvency advocate, and a net benefit. I’m good with any reasonable cp as long as the negative is ready to defend it theoretically or kick out of it.

DA: Uniqueness determines the direction of the link.

Impacts: Do impact calculus and turns/solves case arguments at least in the 2NR/2AR. If the debate comes down to impact calculus and neither team has done any, I can’t tell you how I personally would evaluate the impacts. Please just make my life easier and do the impact calc

Impact Turns: If you impact turn anything like discrimination, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. you’re going to lose and get 0 speaker points.

Email: caitlynajones1@gmail.com

Pronouns: (she/her)

I have done no topic research. Assume I know nothing

I debated PF for 4 years

• If you want me to vote on it, it needs to be in the summary and the final focus

• Please don’t just yell cards at me. Some analysis please

• If there’s an evidence misconduct problem, I’d rather you point out the issues with your opponent’s interpretation of evidence during your speeches, but I’ll call for a card if you tell me to.

• Any concessions in cross need to be in a speech for me to flow it

• Don't Spread at me. If I need a case doc to follow you, it's too fast.

• I'm not flowing anything after the 10-second grace period

I'm a former debater for Samford University's policy debate team.

My EMAIL is abimckibben@gmail.com

Preferences (LD/Policy):

• PLEASE read a plan
• Love me some impact comparison
• ROADMAP (announce when you are moving from one advantage/disad to another)
• I am not familiar with LD so keep the lingo to a minimum...

Preferences (Public Forum):

• Follow general prefs below...

General Speech Preferences:

• Don't spread/speak too fast, unless you want me to miss what you're saying...(If unclear, I will say "clear" briefly)
• Impress me by extending arguments AND relating them to the opposing team's evidence/args
• Easy on the abbreviations
• Evidence quality > evidence quantity
• Be aggressive, but cordial... be unprofessional and I will dock you serious speaker points
• As long as I can tell you're giving your best effort (even if you're losing badly) you'll get a decent score for speaker points...

Abigail Montgomery, Samford University

7th semester debating at Samford.
Recycledearth03@gmail.com

DO NOT steal prep time!

Things that are prep time:

• Any time you are not giving a constructive, CX, rebuttal, or roadmap.
• Putting your speech doc together - including saving doc, setting up email chain, attaching it to the email, etc.
• Asking for cards outside of CX time.
• Flowing before the timer starts.

MACRO-ISSUES

Clarity: Please, please, please do not spread if you are not capable of doing so. If you aren't able to enunciate all your words, that is evidence you need to slow down. While I am all for being fast, if you are unable to do so clearly, do not make an attempt. Speed is not the key to winning a debate.

Speaker points: Points are influenced by a variety of factors, including, but not limited to: Communication skills, speaking clarity, road-mapping, stealing prep time, quality of CX, strategy, and execution.

Flowing:
• I flow.
• I evaluate the debate based primarily on what I have flowed.
• I frequently flow CX.
• I make more effort to get the arg than I do the cite or date.
• Roadmap and signpost

Evidence:
• Evaluate and compare claims and evidence in the debate.
• I don’t like to read evidence if I don’t feel the argument has been communicated to me

K: I am a policy debater, but I love the K (anything from Baudrillard to Rage). I view debate as a space for education, activism, and social justice. For K debaters, you must win your alt is better for advancing causes of social justice. The same applies for theory violations. Win that your approach and your argument deserve to win because of the impact it has.

Some things to be aware of:

1) My decisions are neutral and unbiased, which will be reflected in all comments/critiques I make. If you feel I have been unfair, you are welcome to talk to me after the debate.

2)I have a low tolerance for rude, snarky comments made in my presence. I don't care if it is during the debate or not, be nice.

3) Fairness is an impact.

4) A “dropped” argument is only true if it was explained properly.

5) If you read "death good", I will vote against you. If you trivialize human tragedy, I will vote against you. If you are racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, or sexist, I will vote against you.

6) Explain why the CP differs from the plan.

PF & LD

Use an email chain with me on it. Do not drop line by line to summarize your arguments. I'm more likely to vote for the team that interacts with the other teams' arguments to accelerate their own. I'm fine with CPs, DAs, plans, etc. if you want to run them. Impact calc is a must and make sure you collapse down to your best arguments in the summary. Don't waste time on insignificant arguments you're not going for. You must explain the warrants of the evidence you read. I will not accept the extension of a tag.

Updated for 2023-2024 Season

Please put me on the speech thread! Thank you.

Email: thelquinn@gmail.com

Titles: Director of Debate at Samford University (AL).

Meta-thoughts:

I’m not the smartest human. You’re maybe/likely smarter than me. Please do not assume I know anything you are talking about. And I would honestly love to learn some new things in a debate about arguments you researched.

Debaters are guilty until proven innocent of clipping cards. I follow along in speech docs. I believe it is judges job to police clipping and it is unfair to make debaters alone check it. I will likely say clear though, it's nothing personal.

I keep a running clock and "read along" with speech docs to prevent clipping. At the end of the round, I find myself most comfortable voting for a team that has the best synthesis between good ethos, good tech/execution, and good evidence. I will not vote on better evidence if the other team out debates you, but I assign a heavy emphasis on quality evidence when evaluating competing arguments, especially offensive positions.

Education/Debate Background:

Wake Forest University: 2011-2015. Top Speaker at ADA Nationals my Junior Year. 2x NDT First-Round Bid at Wake Forest. 2x NDT Octofinalist. 2x Kentucky Round Robin. Dartmouth Round Robin. Pittsburgh Round Robin.

Mountain Brook High School: 2007-2011. 3x TOC Qualifier. 2011 Winner of Emory's Barkley Forum in Policy Debate. Greenhill and Harvard Round Robin. Third Place at NSDA Nationals in 2011. Seventh Place NSDA Nationals 2010. Winner of Woodward JV Nationals.

Policy Thoughts:

Tl;dr: Offense/defense, the algorithm, cards are currency. UQ determines link unless otherwise said. Willing to pull the trigger on T/theory.

Flow: Most debaters should make analytics off their flows, especially in digital debate. Conversely, if you include analytics on your speech doc but I do not find you clear but I recognize where you are on your speech doc, I will not consider them arguments.

Condo: Im largely ok with conditionality. I think the best aff args against conditional are against contradictory conditional options. I do not really like the counter-interp of dispo. Im a much bigger fan of CI is non-contradictory conditional options.

• 3 or less non contradictory conditional options is ok to me
• 2 contra condo is fine
• 3 contradictory condo (including a K) and I am willing to vote on contra condo bad.
• For new affs, I think at most 5 contra condo is permissive. Anymore and I think you risk losing on theory.
• I think negs should take the 2 seconds it takes to have a CI that isn't "what we did." "What we did" is not really a good CI in debates.

CP Theory: If the 2AC straight turns your disad, no amount of theory will justify a 2NC CP out of/around the straight turned DA. 2NC CP's vs addons are different and chill/encouraged. Generic Process/ Conditions/ consult CPs cause me to lean aff on theory/perm, unless you have a good solvency advocate specific to their plan text which can prove its predictable and important for that area of debate. But I’m persuaded that a generic/predictable aff posted on the wiki can win a theory debate/perm do CP against a generic process/ conditions/ consult CPs. This is especially true with any Con Con CP. Con Con is the worst.

I hate judge kick. Do you want me to flow for you too? Maybe compose your speech doc while you're at it? I don't give the affirmative random permutations. Don't make me kick your trash counterplan for you.

T: My "favorite" standards are predictable limits (debatability) and real-world context (literature/education). I think a topicality interp that has both of those standards I will err on. Evidence that is both inclusive and exclusive is the gold standard. I tend to be more moderate with reasonability. I am not in the cult of limits. I err aff if I believe your interpretation is "reasonable" and that the negative did not prove you made debate impossible even if their interpretation is slightly better.

Kritikal Debate. I vote off the flow, which means my opinions on K debate are secondary to my voting. And I was 4-0 for Wake BD last year in some big debates against policy teams, so I'm going to vote for the team that I thought did the better debating (But are you Wake BD?). Im not really opposed to kritiks on the negative that are tied to the plan/resolution or kritikal affirmatives that defend a topical plan of action. I think where I draw the line is that I'm not a good judge for more performance based "affirmatives/negatives" that neither affirm nor negate the plan text/resolution. I lean very heavily neg on FW v non or anti-topical K affs. I think a good topical version of the affirmative is the best argument on FW. The role of the judge is to vote for the team who does the better debating. Debate is an educational game we play on the weekend with friends. I will not evaluate arguments that derive from actions/events out of the debate I am judging. Fairness is an impact and intrinsically good. I do not believe the ballot has material power to change the means of production/structures and thinking it does may even be problematic.

Please do not read global warming good. Global warming is real and will kill us all. And I am particularly persuaded by the argument that introducing these arguments in debate is unethical for spreading propaganda and should be deterred by rejecting the team. I'm way more persuaded by inevitability and alt cause args.

I’m a parent judge with 2 years of judging experience with LD (traditional debate). I have a few preferences that need to be followed in order to persuade me:

· Speak clearly so that I can comprehend everything you are saying.

· Please keep your pace to a conversational speed so I can flow. If I miss something on the flow, I can’t vote based on it.

· Be civil and respectful within the round. There will be no racism, sexism, misogyny, belittling of your opponent, or personal criticism of your opponent. If you display any of these characteristics I will stop listening to you and drop you with low speaks.

· Framework is very important. You should have a clear value and value criterion that is well-warranted and explained clearly. You should apply it to all of your arguments made in the round and uphold it at the end. I should be able to tell what contention you’re speaking about and all of your separate points.

· The debate will be weighed on whose arguments and framework were the most clear, consistent, and carried throughout the round.

· Evidence should be extended, if your opponent doesn’t negate your evidence, make that clear to me and carry it throughout.

· Spell it out why I should vote for you, especially in your last speech.

· Having confidence is a huge key to winning. If you sound confident, you’re more than likely to convince me. 

Add me to the chain: nrastogi5@yahoo.com

Hello! My name is TJ Riggs and I'm a Junior Policy Debater at Samford University (Qualed to NDT 2022 and 2023) and head coach of the SpeakFirst debate team. I have been debating since sophomore year of high school at both the state and national level. I always try my best to avoid intervention and I will generally weigh tech over truth. That being said, I reserve the right to gut check egregiously false claims. I am a pretty active listener, so if you see me nodding my head then I am probably vibing with your args. If I look confused or unconvinced you'll probably see it on my face. I look forward to judging you!

INCLUDE ME ON THE EMAIL CHAIN: tjriggs03@gmail.com

Below is a more comprehensive list of my judging preferences:

1 - LARP/Policy

2 - Trad

3 - K's

4 - Dense Phil

Strike - Tricks

Preferences (LD):

Traditional (V/VC Framework): Traditional debate is where I got my start, and I always love hearing a solid traditional round. Framework is important, however I also heavily value the impact debate. Explicitly tell me why under your framework your impacts matter. Being able to tie your case together is essential.

Dense Phil: Eh, not really my favorite. I am generally unconvinced that intentions matter more than consequences in the face of extinction level scenarios. Not to say I won't vote on it but I probably should not be at the top of your pref sheet.

Tricks: Tricks are really stupid and bad for debate. I honestly don't even really care if your opponent just refuses to acknowledge them the whole round, I'm still probably not going to drop them for it. Go ahead and strike me :)

Adv/DA: Easy, clean debate. Please clearly announce when you are moving to the next advantage or disadvantage. If you are reading an advantage aff please read a plan, even if it’s “Plan: Do The Res”.

CP: Counterplans are always nice. Run them as you please, and I’m happy to listen. I don't love PIC's in LD but I will listen to them. 1 or 2 condo is probably ok, more than that starts to push it. 3+ contradictory options and it starts getting bad for you (NOTE: New affs probably justify infinite condo).

Theory/T: Theory and T are fine as long as it’s reasonably warranted. Topicality really has to be warranted or I’m not going to drop them for it. I think topic relevant definitions are important, I probably won't drop them because your dictionary.com definition of "the" meaning "all" probably won't convince me they aren't topical. Please make sure you are familiar with the format of Theory and T shells, don’t run them if you aren’t. I will listen to RVI arguments (LD not Policy). I will listen to Frivolous Theory because it is your time and you can do with it as you please but I won't give you the round over it, so its most likely a waste of your breath.

Kritiks: Topical Kritiks are fine. Non-topical Kritiks are not my favorite but if it is properly warranted i'll vote on it. Familiar with most standard K lit, anything fancy please explain well.

Preferences (Public Forum):

Email Chains: Up to debaters if they would like to chain.

Evidence Standard: Not a fan of paraphrasing. Let the experts who wrote your cards do the talking for you. I won't instantly drop you for paraphrasing ev, but I will read the evidence and am open to arguments from your opponent as to why paraphrasing is bad. Excessive exaggeration of what your evidence says will hurt your speaker points and possibly even your chance at the ballot.

Extending Arguments: Please argue the substance of your ev, not just the taglines. I am going to be much more inclined to buy your evidence if you thoughtfully explain why it specifically answers parts of the flow. Just saying "Extend Riggs 2021" is not sufficient. Carry your arguments through the flow, I should be able to draw a line from your constructive to your final focus and see the argument evolve throughout the round.

Speech Preferences:

Speed: I'm cool with any speed. Spreading is fine, but please articulate. If I can not understand you I will say "clear". Please do not go faster than you are capable of, many arguments can be made just as well by slowing down and sticking to the point.

Speaker Points: Clarity is key for speaks. Please be respectful to your opponent, being rude will result in points being docked.

If you have any questions about my judging style, experience, or preferences, please feel free to email me at tjriggs03@gmail.com

Name: Grace Scott

Pronouns: she/her

Email: 84gracescott@gmail.com

My name is Grace Scott. I am a junior at Samford University. I came into the debate community new freshman year, and have really been enjoying the rigor and joy of this singular activity.

TLDR:

Context is king.

Don't be an jerk, be effective.

Re: Prep time. 1) USE IT ALL. 2) Be transparent if things get funky – tech time, delays, etc

Essentials:

I value arguments that are brought up consistently and clearly.

Regarding evidence v analytics, I value clash. The context of how an argument is being made changes how I value it. For example, if someone makes a point, contextualizes it in the debate, and uses evidence to back it up, I value that over analytics no matter how good the analytics are. However, if evidence is used in a rote manner that does not engage the other side and the opponent's analytics are highly specific, responsive, and intelligent, I will prefer the analytics. It's contextual, so be specific and responsive.

I don't value hostility in cross x. Cross x is for clarifying and communicating to your opponents and to your judge. You don't need to be passive, but if the hostility is such that it doesn't move the ideas forward, you are wasting time for both of us.

When giving my RFD, my goal is to communicate how I understood the debate and give you feedback you can use to improve your debating.

To avoid my pet peeves:

Don’t leave time on the clock. It is better to stand up there in the painful silence and shuffle through your flows. This gives you time to think analytics off the fly and shows tenacity. Lay judges may appreciate the politician like appearance of composure. I want to see you practice skills that will win you debates.

COMMUNICATE WITH ME ABOUT TECH ISSUES.

I am not here to police your prep time. You are honorable competitors, and I am not a cop. I trust that when you are running prep time you are prepping, and when the timer has stopped you are transitioning to giving a speech.

If you feel like your opponents are stealing prep, feel free to call them out (respectfully and professionally). I'm cool with it. My partner and I do so regularly. A simple, "Are y'all running prep?" or "And how much time do y'all have left?" will suffice.

If you run into a problem outside your control, let me know and use your tech time (equivalent to your prep time), it’s there for a reason. Narrating what you are doing, “I’m saving the document” “I’m pressing reply all” “The doc is attached and once it loads, I will press send” are great ways to ensure transparency.

I would love to chat with you about debate, or about Samford debate. Feel free to shoot me an email if you have further questions.

Please be on time for check-in. Also if you're interested in college debate, I'd love to talk to you about Samford debate!!

If you have any questions about things not on my paradigm, feel free to ask before the round or email me.

Email: joeytarnowski@gmail.com

he/him

Background

Policy debate at Samford (class of 24), qualified to NDT 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024

4 years of LD in high school

Judging

Don't say/run things that are egregiously offensive, i.e. racism/sexism/etc. good, death good, etc.

I would recommend starting off your speech at like 75-80% speed to give me a second to adjust before you build up to full speed. Clear differentiation between tags and the card body is also appreciated.

I do a lot of work on both the policy and critical side of debate in college. I generally am of the predisposition that the aff should defend some implementation of the resolution, the specifics of what that may mean is flexible, but choosing to mostly or entirely jettison the resolution is not the best strategy in front of me. I think Ks on the neg are most successful when forwarding a nuanced indict of some underlying assumptions/mechanisms of the aff, and that affs are typically most successful in reasons why the neg is not able to explain key portions of the aff and leveraging that against the K's explanation of the world.

I'm generally more neg leaning on CP theory debates and typically default heavily to reasonability and rejecting the argument, but I think especially egregious practices can make me swing more toward the middle on issues like condo (i.e. 2NC CPs out of straight turns or kicking planks on CPs with a ton of planks that do a ton of different things). Love a good impact turn debate, hate a stale impact turn debate. Otherwise I don't have any especially notable preferences when it comes to policy arguments, impact calc at the top is always good, evidence comparison is great, etc.

I'm an ok judge for T but am not the biggest fan of it as a throwaway strategy that only occupies a small portion of the neg block. Significant time investment in evidence comparison is much more important to me here and often is a make-or-break.

Note for LD: I would not consider myself a good judge for "tricks". If you regularly do things like hide blippy theory arguments or rely on obfuscating tactics to win debates, I am probably not the best judge for you.

Local/Lay Debate

First and most importantly, I am excited to be judging you and glad you are a part of this activity!

I will disclose my decision and give any feedback I can as long as it is not explicitly prohibited by the tournament, and strongly believe the process of disclosure/feedback/asking questions is one of the most important parts of debate. You are always welcome to ask questions about my decision, ask for advice, clarification, etc. or email me and I will always be happy to help in whatever ways I can (assuming you aren't blatantly rude).

I did a lot of lay debate in high school, it was probably 80% or more of what I did, so I can really appreciate a slower debate. My advice for you is to do what you do best and are most comfortable with, don't feel like you have to spread or read positions you are unfamiliar with because of my policy background, as I started out and have spent almost half of my debate career doing slow, traditional debate. Some other things you should know:

1] One of the most important aspects of my judging is that I think the bar for explanation is generally too low for most debates. If you want to win an argument, you shouldn't just explain what your argument is, but the reasoning behind WHY it's true, as well as what the implication is for that argument being true.

2] Please make sure you have and can show me the full text of any evidence you read. I may not need to reference any evidence after the round, but if I do I would prefer you have it readily available. I would heavily prefer this is made easier by setting up an email chain with me and your opponent where all evidence read in-round is exchanged, both for the purposes of transparency and quality of things like evidence comparison.

3] I often find framework debates in lay LD have little direction or warrants. This is especially true when both sides have a similar or identical framework, and I think those debates would often be drastically improved by the neg just conceding framework and the rest of the debate focusing just on substance.

I also really appreciate folks who have a clear understanding of things like evidence comparison and strategy, I feel most people overlook the ability to make smart strategic decisions and leverage evidence comparison in lay debate. Knowing your evidence and author qualifications and effectively utilizing them are powerful strategic tools, as well as making smart strategic concessions in other parts of the debate to get things like a strong time tradeoff on other important parts of the debate.