Advocacies: In general, I have no overwhelming preference for any particular type of advocacy. I have a slight bias towards policy discussions, but greatly appreciate kritikal discussion if teams decide to do so. When it comes to kritical literature I have a relatively good understanding of anti-blackness, Marxism, Nietzsche, and biopower. Do not worry, however, if your kritikal advocacy falls outside of those categories, however, as I am always happy to hear new perspectives and will do my best to flow and follow the debate.

Theory: Theory is fine to use in the debate, but some types of theory will have a higher threshold for acceptance than others. In general, framework, topicality, spec, and “PICs bad” are solid, but theories such as aff framework choice, or “you don’t get a criticism,” will generally need to be more specifically justified for the debate. Anything beyond these categories, will probably come down to the context of the round in which it is read. Finally, independent voting issues have a relatively high threshold; if the voting issue is not well explained or expanded upon, it will likely have less impact on my decision. Also, if there is a genuine issue in the round such that you believe it warrants some form of theory in the PMR, I will flow it and evaluate it, but I highly discourage its usage unless the other team is being truly disrespectful, ignoring your requests and questions, or acting in any significant bad faith manner.

In Round: In round, I have no limitations for speed, but will ask you to speak louder if I am not able to hear you. I ask that you respect the other side’s request for slower speed or clearer speech if requested, and I will not hesitate to deduct speaker points for a lack of decorum or blatant disregard for the other side’s requests.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at:

deleelmit@gmail.com

HIGH SCHOOL

A basic overview:

--Don’t be offensive or rude. Passionate is fine, rude is not. Be respectful in CX!

--Please contextualize cards, don’t just read evidence. Be able to explain it and apply it in round.

--Clash please, don’t be two ships sailing past each other.

--If someone asks to slow down, please do.

--Don’t maliciously/intentionally lie.

--Overview/Underview's are very appreciated!

--Range is 26-30 USUALLY. 27 means you gave speeches. It was average. Basically it is my baseline where I adjust up and down.

--Impacts please!

--I love it when people read my paradigm

--Have fun and learn a lot!

If you want more knowledge, feel free to read the college section.

COLLEGE

I prefer to go by Nora now, though I will not be upset if you use my birth name. It is not traumatic for me personally, more of a comfort thing for me (I use any pronouns, feel free to ask)

Important Stuff (PLEASE READ THIS IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE):

--Do not use ableist slurs. It is offensive and personally traumatic for me. This is a potential vote down on the spot issue, if warrented out. (I'd prefer if you didn't use the terms p*ranoid/p*ranoia or d*lusional/d*lusion unless talking about the conditions, just a personal preference).

--DO NOT Misgender someone on purpose, (including being corrected on pronouns, but refusing to use the correct ones) . I have no tolerance for transphobia in debate. Also a heads up I tend to ask pronouns before rounds start to insure I do not mmisgender. In genrtal. Do not be a bigot

--Please do not lie or be unethical in round. (You can make guesses and extrapolate, and even be wrong. Just don't tell me the sky is green without contextualizeing it)

--Please do not Lie about being a particular identity. I do not police identities (I will not force an outing or demand to know your identity), but do not lie about it. Being honest is the best policy with me I promise you.

--Do Impact Calculus please. It makes my job easier and increases the likelihood I vote your way. If no calculus is done, I default to magnitude then timeframe then probability

Overall/Background:

I have competed in Debate for 3 years. 1 year of Parliamentary Debate and 2 years of Lincoln Debate. I have also done Policy Debate at a tournament. Since then, I have been judging and helping out with McKendree Debate for 2 years judging both Lincoln Douglas and Parliamentary Debate for them. I now judge for any team that hires me. I also have judged Policy Debate for the Saint Louis Urban Debate League for 4 years.
TLDR: I've been involved in debate since about 2015.

On Kritiks/Critical Affs:

I can vibe with the Kritik. But Please explain your kritik (Underview or overview). Don’t say buzzwords and taglines and expect me to understand it. I’m not really up to date with the literature. I will be honest, I have read for fun, since dropping out of my masters, at this point and what interests me (often history). So odds are I have not read the literature on the K (Last critical lit I read/listened to was Capitalist Realism in August/Sept of 2022). So don't expect me to know it and do work for you. I also have comprehension issues when it comes to this. Please Know your Kritik. Also, I am open to kritiks on the language used in the round (Ableism for example). You can be non topical in front of me. But you must be able to defend it.

On T/theory:

For Potential Abuse: I’d like some example of abuse or a reasonable disad/cp that could not have been read (you don't have to read the disad that no links, a simple here's a disad I could have ran works fine). Because they are so potent, I like the team to be winning at every level and the majority of standards. I would also like some form of impact coming off of T, something you can argue why this is bad and such.

Cross-X:

I do hold cross-x as binding. However, I do not flow it, but I will take notes and pay attention. But you can extend argumentation and answers said in cross-x on the flow and I will consider them as arguments/stuff the other team said.

Perms (Mostly For LD):

I like some warrants or explanation on why Perms will work. I need an explanation on stuff such as Perm do the CP on why I should allow that.

Procedurals:

I am willing to hear out procedurals outside of T. My favs include Conditionality. Now I will hear out frivolous procedures, however I will warn you it will be an uphill battle. Like my threshold for this is you absolutely have to be winning everywhere to win a frivolous/joke procedural. So do with this what you will. I however will not hear out racist, ableist, transphobic, or bigoted procedurals.

Misc.:

Speaks for me start at 27, meaning a 27 for me is a normal speech, not exceptional but not bad. I am somewhat fine with speed to an extent (this is more for parliamentary). Don’t use it to purposely discriminate/exclude a person from the activity. If you are going to fast for me. I will say SPEED to signal to slow down (if you are becoming incoherent I will say CLEAR). If you don’t slow down, I will try to flow But I probably won’t get it all so you probably won’t like my RFD (Please be considerate, I have ADHD and autism so if you are going too fast it can cause me to end up losing my focus, I'll let you know if this is happening). I am in favor of disclosing RFD’s and can explain my reasoning, you are welcome to ask questions.

You can reach me at the following with any questions, I will try my best to answer!

justinfauszpersonal@gmail.com

Facebook: Justin Fausz

UPDATED November 4th, 2023

I'm glad you're doing Debate, I look forward to watching your round, and I wish you the very best of luck!

Before all else, I am a FLOW JUDGE. Here's more specifics on what I want to see in a round:

• All arguments need clearly explained logical warrants, as it's not my job to make logical leaps for you
• Claims must be grounded in evidence, and when there's contradictory evidence on both sides, I'd like an explanation of why to prefer your evidence/warrant, because otherwise I'm left guessing
• Structure your speeches how you feel is best, but signpost so that I know where you're at on the flow
• In a good round, both sides will have valid arguments left, so please WEIGH IMPACTS in later speeches
• I don't flow cross-ex, so if something important happens there, make sure it's in your next speech
• I expect you to stand your ground (this is debate after all), but maintain a baseline of respect/decorum
• I would much rather you ask a clarifying question than attack an argument that wasn't made (don't strawman your opponents, ever)
• I'm cool with a little speed, you have a lot to cover, but please don't spread, because that defeats the point of this activity (I also don't like K's/theory/progressive debate)

I'm always happy to answer any questions before or after the round, since this is an educational tool before all else, and you're here to learn (don't lose sight of that).

Have a great day, make a friend, learn something new, and enjoy it.

I am a former Lincoln/Douglas and collegiate debater and a current litigation attorney. I learned many important skills during my time in debate that are applicable to various real world settings. Real world communications do not involve speed reading. A judge in a courtroom would hold me in contempt if I made an oral argument by seeing how fast I could read my notes. Likewise, I do not like speed. I like debaters to present their cases in a logical and persuasive manner. I also appreciate clash. Clash is best obtained when both debaters signpost their arguments and tell me where on my flow an argument should be noted. Finally, I appreciate being told why I should vote for you. Make it easy for me to record your arguments and to vote for you and I probably will.

Last thing- I am a fan of including the opinions of philosophers and historic figures in your cases. We may be debating current issues but I bet Aristotle, Socrates, Rawles or Bentham have offered opinions that are applicable to the topic at hand.

Last, Last thing- Have fun. This is a fun and rewarding activity. Don't take this or yourself too seriously.

Lincoln-Douglas debate is an educational endeavor meant to enhance critical thinking, presentation in speech and debate, and researching skills. I expect both debaters to respect the activity for its educational focus. Primarily this means forming cohesive arguments that include reasoning developed through rhetoric and research, not just some form of it wholly focused on either. Which means that if you do not understand the information you are giving me and its impact on the round, do not expect me to make logical leaps and conclusions for you.

These topics are meant to be divisive enough to be argued on equal terms. Do not expect a sheer amount of facts to win your round for you. Focus on impacts and the philosophy behind your rhetoric and information is more persuasive than overloading the debate sheet. Remember, while you are here to win, you are also here to learn. Respect to that perspective is expected.

My background: I did LD for 2 years in high school and now compete at the collegiate level, earning a semifinal slot at Nationals in 2021. I also assist with my high school program on occasion. I currently attend Southern Illinois University of Edwardsville and am majoring in Accounting.

TLDR: It truly believe in a good value debate and quality over quantity. Definitions will not be judged. Be sure to show how your value and value criterion relate to each contention, and what impact that has. Well developed points and solid offensive arguments against your opponent’s case make you stand out. Constantly making defensive arguments and avoiding clash on points makes it difficult to show that you are the more skilled debater.

If you are a novice debater: do not try to do things that are way over your comfort and skill level. As a novice judge, I want to see what your foundational skills are, and many times novice debaters who try to use complex cards or more speed can hurt themselves more than help. Remember that your opponent has around the same skills as you, and that your first few tournaments should be learning experiences. 

I am completely open to odd, outside the box arguments, but the debater must prove them to be valid and ensure that they are better against their opponent’s case. I am more than willing to vote for these arguments if they are ahead on the flow and can argue the values of their case well.

Speed: Debating with speed is fine with me, if you are not speaking clearly or going too fast, I will give you “speed” or “clear” once or twice. After this, it is up to you to pick up on it- this most of the time means I am looking directly at you/not writing. If I can’t understand it enough to flow it, I can’t vote on it in the round.

I am always interested in hearing new arguments- I believe the same material is used too often in LD debate, and it is always tiresome to hear the same case argued round after round. I welcome originality!

Speaker Points: I determine speaker points on the quality of your case’s initial presentation, execution of rebuttals, and how persuasive I find your points to be. My average speaker points is 27.5, with 20-25 being reserved for problematic debating, and 29-30 being reserved for outstanding debating.

Name: Jayden Touchette (she/her)

School Affiliation: Belleville West High School

Were you previously affiliated with any other school?No.

Number of years and/or tournaments judging the event you are registered in: I've been judging for four years, and I competed for 7.

Have you judged in other debate events? Please describe if so.I've judged a mix of LD and PF over the years, and I have also judged speech. At this point, I've also competed in most styles of debate, so I am very familiar with structure.

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of delivery preference (slow, conversational, brisk conversational, etc.)I am completely fine with speed as long as you are clear; however, do not go fast just for the sake of talking fast. There is nothing wrong with conversational speed, and I would much rather have that than not being able to understand a word you say.

How important is the value criterion in making your decision?It depends on the round. You (the competitor) need to tell me why the V and VC are important for your arguments as well as your opponents. If you don't do that weighing, I have a hard time being able to make a decision on that portion of the debate without having to intervene too much. That being said, you should be weighing V and VC in the round!

Do you have any specific expectations for the format of the 2nd Affirmative Rebuttal and 2 Negative Rebuttal (i.e. line by line/ direct refutation and/or big picture?) The 2NR can have a bit of line by line, but it should not be the focus. By the time we reach second rebuttals, I prefer big picture elements of the round. Give me the voting issues. Tell me why I should vote for you to win the round.

Are voting issues necessary for your decision?I prefer voting issues in the final rebuttal. I think it helps me make my decision cleaner and clearer. Please give me voting issues to consider in my decision!

How critical are ”extensions” of arguments into later speeches?extend, extend, extend! If there is an argument that helps your case, EXTEND IT! Especially if the argument is dropped. I won't do extensions for you. You need to tell me to bring it across the flow.

Flowing/note-taking-I flow the rounds just as you should. I try to take as many notes as possible on the arguments so I can keep up with the debate. I often reference my flow in decisions.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?Truthfully, I love a nice style in a debate round, but arguments are always going to influence my decision way more than style.

In order to win a debate round, does the debater need to win their framework or can they win using their opponent’s framework?You can win using whoever's framework you would like as long as you explain to me why. I love watching good framework debates, so please feel free to have one of those in front of me.

How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (analytical and/or empirical) is in the round?Evidence is SO IMPORTANT! If you don't have evidence, I have a hard time buying any claim you want to make. Give me some kind of evidence for every claim you make because without evidence, it is really easy for me to just overlook the argument.

Any other relevant information (optional)?I'll attach my old paradigm below. I think it has a few more details about me and my perspective as a judge.

I wholeheartedly believe that this is your activity and your round, so my thoughts shouldn't dictate what happens in the round. My goal as a judge and coach is to allow the debaters to have the debate they want to have, and I have spent a lot of time learning and growing so I can best facilitate that and judge any debate, which I believe I can.

So I can be of better service to you, I have created a list with specific thoughts I have about debate. Do with this what you will.

-A claim is not an argument. Please give warrants and thorough explanation to any claim you make. That is the only way I will vote on that argument.

-When you read a Value and Value Criterion, please carry that through the flow throughout the round unless you kick out of it. Values and Value Criterions are something special about this style of my debate, and, when done well, VC debates are some of my favorites.

-When giving voting issues on specific arguments, please provide impact weighing. Don’t tell me to extend an argument and move on. Explain to me why that matters more than what your opponent is saying.

-Always give your opponents arguments close and careful thought. I promise you that someone has spent time thinking about the things they are saying, so in order for you to keep afloat in the round, don't just dismiss arguments without thorough explanation.

-HAVE FUN! You should do this activity because you enjoy it, and I enjoy judging rounds where the competitors are having fun with what they are doing.

I look forward to judging you in a round. If you have questions about anything on this paradigm or a more specific thought I have on debate, feel free to ask before the round starts. I will be more than happy to answer :)