hi. i am senior debating at Norman North with just myself (ld = lonely debate) i don't think i'm usually a mean debater or judge? basically,

- I hate lack of explanations or clash they make me very sad :(

- plz don't forget u have a framework,, its a very nice thing if you use it

- nothing is as spicy as a good cross examination so use it wisely

(no screaming, shouting, spreading, crying, sobbing, wailing, shreiking, yowling, hollering, bawling, screeching, howling, growling, barking, meowing, snarling, rumbling, bad mouthing, striking, slaping, smacking, hitting, punching, thrashing, whacking, pounding, attacking, assaulting, swatting, or assaulting)

in conclusion, just try your best and uh debate yea woo !

Hello!

I'm Grant and I've debated quite a bit for Norman North

Email Chain - gjgoering@gmail.com

TLDR: I'm fairly tech. I'll try not to intervene if possible. I'll vote for pretty much anything with a good warrant, but I need to believe your argument could really happen, so explain it to me! Other than that I will do my best to adapt to you and how you like to debate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOW I JUDGE:

- Debate is an educational game, make strategic decisions but ground yourself in truth

- Tech > Truth, That isn't an excuse to under-warrant args: I need to understand what I'm voting for

- I default util unless I'm told otherwise

- I presume for the team that lost the flip, if I can't know that then I default first speaking team

- I like cross but won't evaluate anything unless it's in a speech (feel free to skip grand if both sides agree, 1 min prep), cross is binding

- I default 28.5 speaks

- I disclose after the round, if you want to respectfully tell me why you think I was wrong in my decision I would love to hear it! I want to be the best judge I can be

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PREFERENCES:

Speed:

- I can handle ~260-280 WPM

- If you get over 230 WPM I would like a speech doc

- I'll give you 2 clears if I can't understand but after that anything I miss is on you

- You should get slower as the round progresses, if you are still going well over 200 wpm by summary you need a stronger collapse, of course there are exceptions for super high content rounds, but the more arguments in the back half the lower the chance that I understand the round the same way you do

Evidence:

- I don't care if you paraphrase or read off cut cards

- All evidence must have a cut card producible within 2min, after that period I will assume it doesn't exist and you will lose at least .5 speaks, if it is a repeat issue I'll be very open to a evidence ethics IVI

- If you misparaphrase to the point where the meaning of the evidence changes I will: stop the round, drop you, and set your speaks to the lowest allowed by the tournament whether that is 25, 20, or 0

- Same goes for any brackets you add to cards if they change the meaning then I will drop you

- That being said I read cut card and I know sometimes you need to bracket words to make it read correctly

- You should tell me about all questionable evidence (I WILL REVIEW IT IF TOLD TO)

Prep Time:

- Don't steal prep or your speaks go down (I will call you out on it)

- Flex prep is fine

- I don't care when you take prep

Speeches:

- 2nd Rebuttal needs to frontline

- Summary and FF should be mirrors: if I don't hear it in Summary I won't vote on it

- Only thing that should ever be new in 1st Final is responses to 2nd Summary's implications and weighing

- FF should be all about telling me how / what you have won, I want a story

-The threshold for a response to weighing gets lower the later you introduce it, if I get some totally new pre-req weighing in 2nd Summary any decent response in 1st Final will knock it off my flow

Progressive Debate:

My Prefs:

1 (Preferable) - 5 (I am not your judge)

- Topical Debate 1

- Theory 3

- Ks 4 (I don't know any of the lit, so it will be hard for me to evaluate but I will try if you feel you absolutely have to read it)

- Tricks/Friv Theory 5 (Get verbal confirmation with the other team or TKO)

- Non-T Ks 5

- If you are reading a framing argument (developing world, prioritize women, extinction good, etc) I would really prefer you read it in constructive or at the latest rebuttal. Every time I've seen framing introduced in 1st Summary the round falls apart on both sides so just read it in your case if you are going to read it

- My understanding of an RVI is that if Team A is reading a shell and winning No RVIs Team B can still gain offense by turning the shell. To clarify, an RVI only means that a team doesn’t lose if they have no offense on a shell they presented, if you want me to evaluate the round differently you need to explain why in round

- I personally think disclosure is bad for small schools and that big schools should be disclosing, however I’m not going to intervene for either side. Debate how you want, and exemplify the norms you think are good but if there is ANY performative contradiction for any shell you've read at the tournament and its gets pointed out in the round its a TKO

- Friv Theory is bad, don't read it (Formal cloths, Macbooks, etc.) The only exception is if both teams give verbal confirmation to me that they would like to have a Friv theory round in which case I'd be happy to judge

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reach Out If You Have Any Questions!