Hey there, my name is Luke Adams. I was in debate for 2 years for PF. I will not tolerate any racist, homophobic, sexist, or any other discriminatory/hate speech in or out of the debate.

For email chains: danbagwell@gmail.com

I was a Policy debater at Samford / GTA at Wake Forest, now an assistant coach at Mountain Brook. I’ve increasingly moved into judging PF and LD, which I enjoy the most when they don’t imitate Policy.

I’m open to most arguments in each event - feel free to read your theory, critiques, counterplans, etc., as long as they’re clearly developed and impacted. Debate is up to the debaters; I'm not here to impose my preferences on the round.

All events

• Speed is fine as long as you’re clear. Pay attention to nonverbals; you’ll know if I can’t understand you.

• Bad arguments still need answers, but dropped args are not auto-winners – you still need to extend warrants and explain why they matter.

• If prep time isn’t running, all activity by all debaters should stop.

• Debate should be fun - be nice to each other. Don’t be rude or talk over your partner.

Public Forum

• I’m pretty strongly opposed to paraphrasing evidence - I’d prefer that debaters directly read their cards, which should be readily available for opponents to see. That said, I won’t just go rogue and vote on it - it’s still up to debaters to give convincing reasons why that’s either a voting issue or a reason to reject the paraphrased evidence. Like everything else, it’s up for debate.

• Please exchange your speech docs, either through an email chain or flash drive. Efficiency matters, and I’d rather not sit through endless prep timeouts for viewing cards.

• Extend warrants, not just taglines. It’s better to collapse down to 1-2 well-developed arguments than to breeze through 10 blippy ones.

• Anything in the Final Focus should be in the Summary – stay focused on your key args.

• Too few teams debate about evidence/qualifications – that’s a good way to boost speaks and set your sources apart.

Lincoln-Douglas

• I think LD is too often a rush to imitate Policy, which results in some messy debates. Don’t change your style because of my background – if you’re not comfortable (or well-practiced) spreading 5 off-case args, then that’s not advisable.

• If your value criterion takes 2+ minutes to read, please link the substance of your case back to it. This seems to be the most under-developed part of most LD rounds.

• Theory is fine when clearly explained and consistently extended, but I’m not a fan of debaters throwing out a ton of quick voters in search of a cheap shot. Things like RVIs are tough enough to win in the first place, so you should be prepared to commit sufficient time if you want theory to be an option.

Policy

[Quick note: I've been out of practice in judging Policy for a bit, so don't take for granted my knowledge of topic jargon or ability to catch every arg at top-speed - I've definitely become a curmudgeon about clarity.]

Counterplans/theory:

• I generally think limited condo (2 positions) is okay, but I've become a bit wary on multiple contradictory positions.

• Theory means reject the arg most of the time (besides condo).

• I often find “Perm- do the CP” persuasive against consult, process, or certainty-based CPs. I don’t love CPs that result in the entire aff, but I’ll vote on them if I have to.

• Neg- tell me how I should evaluate the CP and disad. Think judge kick is true? Say it. It’s probably much better for you if I’m not left to decide this on my own.

Kritiks:

• K affs that are at least somewhat linked to the resolutional controversy will fare the best in front of me. That doesn't mean that you always need a plan text, but it does mean that I most enjoy affirmatives that defend something in the direction of the topic.

• For Ks in general: the more specific, the better - nuanced link debates will go much farther than 100 different ways to say "state bad".

• Framework args on the aff are usually just reasons to let the aff weigh their impacts.

Topicality:

• Caselists, plz.

• No preference toward reasonability or competing interps - just go in depth instead of repeating phrases like "race to the bottom" and moving on.

Congratulations! You have the best judge in the tournament.

I am currently a coach, president and debater at the University of Maryland at Eastern Shore. I debated throughout high school at Auburn High and was president.

Let’s get to the point of how you win a round with me:

Do’s

-You can speak as fast as you like as long as I understand you. If you start to speak fast and slur your words I will stop flowing. There are ways to speed read and still be understood(I know because I do it).

-Use your prep time. There is nothing worse than not using prep time and then doing a speech start to finish and you missed half of what your opponents said. Use the time!

-I prefer facts over probability and hypotheticals. If you get up there and tell me that the world is going to end or 1 billion people die Aff or Neg I will simply start playing Monopoly Go on my phone. Let’s try and stick to the facts and research pretty please.

Don’t’s

-Don’t contradict yourself. If you got something wrong it’s better to admit it then to go back on what you said, it makes you look bad.

-Don’t say anything you wouldn’t want a class full of kindergarten kids to hear. Be kind.

Perfect speaks: Give me an interesting fact in final focus(won’t go against your time) and I’ll give you perfect speaks.

Grand Cross: I absolutely can not stand grand cross because it turns into a fussing match. If you would like- but BOTH teams need to agree on it BEFORE -the first speech, you may skip this and use it for extra prep time that is completely fine with me.

Final Note: I do allow you at the end of the round to email me websites or pieces of research that your opponent may have fabricated. If it helps you win a round then by all means do it. I will look at them before I make my decision.

I will disclose if we are allowed too, and will give critiques if you would like them.

Good luck.

& remember it’s just a debate round, don’t let us stress you out, this is coming from someone who does debate in college and let’s it stress them out. do not be like me.

blackmonkoko@gmail.com

I have been debating at Vestavia for four years now. Also, I am a scorpio -- do with that what you will.

Please be pre-flowed prior to the round.

Please keep your own time in round. I find it super annoying when the judge has to keep the time.

(these two things will get you higher speaks)

Summary -- needs to have all offense that you're going for. The 2nd rebuttal must respond to all offense on the flow i.e. turns or else it's considered conceded if the 1st summary extends it.

CX -- Needs to be clean. I won't flow cross if you have something you want on the flow then you must bring it up in the next speech. Also, keep it entertaining. I do appreciate a laugh (one laugh +1 speaks).

Prep -- PLEASE KEEP UP WITH THE TIME YOURSELF! If you ask me how much time you have left, I will be annoyed (and you also won't like your speaks)

Speed -- I don't have a problem with speed for the most part, but don't spread in round. In fact, if you speak at a normal pace it makes it easier to flow and evaluate your arguments.

Signposting -- is good. Please do it. If you do not do it, then I get confused, then I can't weigh the round properly, then you lose. Lesson to learn -- SIGNPOST!!!!!

Theory -- can't stand it. Very hard for me to vote for it.

Evidence -- If your evidence is shady I will probably call for it. If I do call for evidence, cut card/website are both fine, but a paraphrased version of said evidence is not fine. If I believe you are practicing bad evidence ethnics you lise the argument and the round.

I am a lay judge and have been judging speech and debate for about 6 years. I believe that debate should include a clear presentation of your arguments and evidence. I also believe your speeches should be well organized. In the end, I will value argument over style, but the way you present your arguments is important to my understanding of those arguments. If you call for evidence, please have a legitimate reason for it. I don't like spending a lot of prep time on it. I expect you to time yourselves, but I will be timing too. I like clear, organized flows with clear voters at the end. I weigh heavily on impacts so compare your impacts and convince me that yours are stronger. Please be civil and respectful to your partner and competitors.

My background is in theatre and speech. I love judging speech events and will typically vote for the presenter who has the strongest emotional connection to their piece and the audience. There must be an effective balance of design, style, and presentation. The pieces that showcase who you are as a performer as well as communicating something new and fresh are welcome.

Big Evidence. If you are arguing something you need evidence to back it up

For the online do not speak fast since it will be hard to hear some things

If it is in person I can handle speed but just rember to enunciate your words

I do not care for crossfires. However, if something does happen in the crossfire bring it up in your next speech

If evidence is misread or miscut then I will not flow it

Please signpost so I know where you are going during your speech

If you have anymore questions just ask before the round

My Background

I debated in High School. I am currently a student at Auburn University studying Computer Engineering and Finance.

If I have made my decision after the round i will disclose (if allowed) but if it is a close round i might need more time to think.

Tech > Truth.

Personal Preferences

Make sure you are polite to your opponents.

I will call for evidence if you explicitly tell me to look at it. But it looks bad if you say their arg is bs and it's solid.

I like it when you collapse down to one or two arguments in summary (First or Second summary). I wouldn't advise going for everything if you have 3 or more arguments plus turns. I will still judge the round the same way if you don't collapse but it's easier for me to evaluate rounds without considering 5 args on each side.

Try and be very clear during your off time road map and during your speech where you are on the flow.

Also... I don't like speed. If you're case requires a speech doc to understand I would prefer your use your lay case. I can't stop you from spreading if you want. Excessive speed is exclusionary to smaller and less wealthy programs in my opinion.

If you don't offer a speech doc and then you proceed to spread I won't vote on anything I don't have written on my flow. I typically wont ask for one after constructive so its on you to make sure your judge understands and can flow your arguments.

Debate experience- I do not have any high school/college debate experience, but I have been a sponsor in speech/debate (learned as I taught it). I have judged Congress, PF, LD, and most IE's. I have a BA in History, MEd. in Education, and a MA in History and have taught AP World, AP Euro, regular World History, Contemporary World Religions/Current Events, and regular US History 11th gr. for 19 years.

I do not go in with a bias towards one side or another and will listen to all arguments/contentions, etc. made and typically make my decision on who has convinced me of their case and who has not dropped contentions/points. I like a good clash and substance in the debate; less on theory/policy. I would be classified as more of a traditional LD and PF judge. I like students to have clear contentions and be able to back those up.

Speed: I have never judged Policy and I can see that some policy students have trickled down into the world of LD and even PF. If you spread, you better make sure your opponent can follow your argument and I can follow your argument! Using the strategy of spreading to overwhelm your opponent with information just so you can go back and say that your opponent has dropped your contentions frustrates me. If you have a solid case, there is no reason why speaking at a normal rate of speech would not be preferred.

Respect- Please be kind! I despise when students talk down to their opponents or interrupt them. Some students are still new to debate so they don't need you to crush their spirits. I want everyone to have fun and have a strong, respectful debate.

Disclosure- I do not like to disclose; please don't ask. I will give as much feedback as I can on the judges sheet.

Hello! I'm a veteran educator of world languages. I've taught at several schools throughout the East Coast and South at all levels (secondary and collegiate). I ask that you enunciate clearly and slow down. Please no spreading! Time yourself. Weigh your impact(s). Good luck today!

Willing to give progressive a chance.

The best way to my ballot is to weigh. Weighing is inherently comparative, warrant your weighing and compare links/impacts to your opponents'. If both teams have offense left by the end of the round, I need to know why yours matters more. This is also true with weighing mechanisms themselves (I appreciate meta-weighing). The earlier you start weighing, the better.

Run whatever you want. Theory should be used to check abuses. I won't auto-drop the K, but I wouldn't call myself the most qualified in K-debate. I don't see this a whole lot in PF, so the more progressive your debate becomes, the more you need to explain it to me.

Any speed is good, just be clear.

Please don't give me a soliloquy for your "off-time roadmap." Just tell me which side of the flow you're starting on.

Signpost in every speech following the constructive. If I look lost, I probably am.

I don’t pay attention to cross. If something important happens, then bring it up in your next speech.

For the love of god, give me warrants and extend the warranting throughout the round. Literally everything needs warranting (case, responses, weighing, framing, evidence weighing, theory, etc.). I do not understand why more teams do not spend more time at the warrant-level.

Evidence clash is good. Tell me why your evidence is better/more important.

Collapse. The. Flow.

If you don't frontline, it will be incredibly hard to win my ballot. Not impossible, just very difficult.

If you want it in the final focus, it needs to be in the summary. This is true for extensions, weighing, framing, etc. If you drop it, you will be hard pressed to find me evaluating it by the end of the round.

I vote neg on presumption.

If we are on a virtual platform, please don’t spread. Some speed is okay, but I really value clarity when online.

Add me to the email chain: crhoades2002@gmail.com

This will be my 5rd year serving as a judge (12th tournament). I have a child who is involved in debate with a focus on PF. I have judged mostly PF but also a number of LD rounds. I understand that speed is important to presenting all of your ideas on the topic, however, speed without clarity may lead to confusion or my inability to evaluate the argument. I also feel like all competitions should reflect good sportsmanship and be civil in nature. I prefer to have factual information to substantiate your case and support your argument. Please weigh in summary and final focus and make sure to present all of your arguments and analysis prior to the final focus. Finally, while many of these topics are serious discussions, remember to have fun. See you in round!

I am a lay judge however, I am some what proficient in politics and current events. Do not be slick with me because I catch on fast! I will be following the NSDA and PF rules.

• Please add your own timer! I will NOT do it for you! 
• Do not speak too fast i will not understand clearly. 
• Do not look at your teammates while debating it is rude. 
• I want to hear weighing words and summary.
• In the final focus, I want “voters”. 
• DO NOT ADD NEW INFORMATION IN THE FINAL FOCUS!

Get Real

I am a lay judge but a former English teacher and librarian. I insist on credible sources, quality research, and a well-organized debate. Please use introductory statements, transitions, and make frequent connections between the resolution and your contentions. If I cannot follow your argument, I cannot vote for it. Weigh your impacts, tell me why your evidence is better, and tell me why your argument should win. Avoid spreading. AND PLEASE do not waste time when calling for evidence. It really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Be respectful of your opponents, have fun, and present your best self.