pgeiser@lclark.edu

feel free to email me any questions or concerns you may have!

I recently graduated from Lewis and Clark College and debated for them for four years as well. I competed in LD all four years in high school, qualified for nationals 3x, was a state champion, & did all that cool debate stuff.

Just go for your best strategy. I will listen to any argument. Ultimately, it's your debate and your style is what you should bring to the table. I will vote for anything as long as you make it MATTER. This means impact weighing, framing, and even extending!!!

General:

I vote on flow.

I'm tab, do whatever you want.

Speed is cool BUT if you are reading heavy lit, don't expect me to be able to follow everything-- so in that case you may wanna slow down. Ultimately, I cannot vote for something I don't understand. Also, don't spread tag-lines and plan-texts.

I won't do extra work for you. What you say, is what's on the flow.

Please make the round accessible for everyone... it's not fun debating yourself :(

Affirming:

I am okay with non-topical affs, topical affs, pseudo topical affs, basically whatever. I like being exposed to different forms of debate. however, have something material I can vote for...

You don't need to defend USFG or even the topic, but make sure to be ready for the FW deb8.

Negating:

I like all debate-- cp, disad, t/theory, k...

I will vote on condo bad ☺️

T/Theory:

I default to competing interps.

probs won't vote on frivolous theory-- yes, disclosure theory is frivolous.

my threshold for topicality is pretty high and you need to really go hard on voters. like why am I, as the judge, supposed to even care about topicality? with that said, i enjoy a technical t/theory debate!!!

when going against the K aff, FW is probably strategic but make sure to meet the K at its own level, too. remember that K affs are ready for the FW debate, so that flow isn't always the best to go for. but alas, if you are winning the FW debate, it's probably best you go for it.

I'm one to believe theory in any speech is OK-- as abuse can occur in any speech.

Hi everyone, I'm Matthew and I'm a freshman at UIUC majoring in CS.

I'm not really experienced in Ks or theory, so I'm probably not the best judge for those and I probably won't evaluate them well enough in the context of the round.

Also, I'll be timing prep, so don't try to argue with me about how much prep you have left unless the other team can agree with you on how much you have left.

I think most frameworks in PF aren't real and are just abusively used to gain offense in summary and final focus so if you're providing me a framing with no evidence that's not a real argument I won't evaluate it.

That being said, if your opponent provides a real framework/overview, I expect you to address it or else I consider it dropped and conceded to, just like any other part of the debate; if you drop it, you concede it.

In rebuttal, you must respond to everything, and if you're second rebuttal, please frontline everything. Don't give me another constructive speech in rebuttal. Feel free to start weighing if you have time left.

Your summary must crystallize, weigh, and collapse the round to the most important arguments and impacts for me.

Comparative weighing should be both on the link Ievel and on the impact level.

In many cases, summary is where the RFD is sealed for me. NO NEW ARGUMENTS. You also should extend your offense out to summary or final focus or I might flip a coin to decide the winner.

In final focus, tell me why you win my RFD. Show, DON'T tell and extend your weighing from summary.

If you are bigoted, sexist, or racist in round, I will give you 0 speaks immediately and you will lose the round regardless of how the flow looks.

Any mocking gestures, such as snickering during an opponent's speech, talking loud when you're not supposed to be, or acting in a way that disrupts the debate, I will give you an auto 20 in speaks.

Last but definitely not least, please follow evidence ethics, if your cards are badly cut, taken WAYYY out of context or sounds too good to be true, I won't evaluate your arguments.

P.S: I'll be on my phone during crossfire, so I don't really care about cross unless you're getting violated lol

As a long-time judge, coach, and competitor in Congress, one of the things I love seeing most is Congress run as a debate, since that is its true form... Please include clash in each of your arguments (with the exception of the first authorship, obviously), and clearly and concisely bring up the points of previous senators, either adding to or contesting them. In the event that you give an authorship, make sure to include the reason you are introducing the bill (clearly state the problem), and the context behind the bill/resolution so that the other judges understand it. Each one of your arguments should be supported with evidence from credible sources--not news channels like Fox News or CNN. Sources such as government reports, think tanks, and university studies are most preferable. Your arguments should flow logically from your first claim, to your supporting evidence, and finally to your impact with logical links. The impacts of each argument should be clearly stated and compelling, so as to convince me to weigh your argument more throughout the round. Ask as many relevant questions as you can, and remain professional. Looking forward to a great debate! :)

I am a lay judge. Please go slowly, and make sure all jargon and terminology is crystal clear. I look for coherency in your argument and speech, and I value argumentation over all else. Please be engaging as possible, and use rhetoric efficiently. As for argumentation, I enjoy the introduction of new rounds not yet considered. Make sure you are laying your claim, warrants, and impacts clearly on the table. They should connect effortlessly.

For PO’s: be nice, fair, and do not make mistakes! I would like the round to be as smooth as possible. Know your stuff.

Hey, I'm a parent judge so here are a few things to keep in mind:

1. When going through key parts of the speech (substantive tags, framing points, etc.) slow down

2. Delivery matters!

3. Do not spam the opposition with POIs, this will come back to bite you, and the same goes for protected time

4. Signpost clearly. Let me know when you're going to the next clash point, addressing framing, or stating offense.

5. Be respectful. Respect is very important in the debate space.

At the end of the day, have fun, try your best, and win!

Miaomiao (Mia) Wang

Experience: 0 (first time judge)

School affiliated: Dublin high school

- Register to be judge as a parent.

- like watching debates.

- work in environmental research.

- like reading

- like history and politics.

- like clear, analytical reasoning based on good quality data.

- logic and flow

- always listen to counter points.

Have fun debating.